Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-12 , ' �; '�" ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 3 Kristi Hanson X 2 1 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 3 Karel Lambell X 2 1 Nancy DeLuna X 3 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant I11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 22, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic,, to approve the January 22, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: � ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL AND MARIANNE TOIA, 46-020 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of golf cart barn structure for its aesthetic blending with the existing home and surrounding community. LOCATION: 46-020 Burroweed Lane ZONE: R-2 8000 (4) Mr. Bagato introduced the project and stated that this item would require a variance for the setback issue of the roof structure so the Commission's recommendation would be based on architecture only and would then go to the Planning Commission after the decision today. Mr. Swartz presented the staff report and summarized the project. He directed the Commission to their packets showing the golf cart barn. He stated that in 2006 the applicant came in to get a permit to frame, but the applicant also put in a roof structure and a door without permits. So the applicant still has to obtain a building permit for the roof and the door and based on the setback it will have to go to Planning Commission for a variance. Today the Commission would be looking at the overall aesthetics to see if it is in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Swartz passed around additional photos that he took prior to the meeting. Mr. Bagato stated that this item was noticed so we'll hear from the neighbors in favor of it and in opposition of it. He indicated that staff is trying to address the planning issue and if it's approved through the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the Planning Commission then the Building Inspectors will get involved to determine the process to make sure it is modified to meet building codes. Today we are just looking at architectural merit. Mr. Michael Toia, applicant, presented photos of the pre-existing golf cart barn. He stated that it was previously a wooden gate with an aluminum roof structure that posed problems with vandalism and offered no protection from the elements. He presented photos G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesUlRC Minutes�2008�AR080212.doc Page 2 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 of several homes that have garages built right on the common wall and other photos showing a 48 inch setback between the two buildings. He also mentioned that there were some homes with a zero setback between two houses; some are divided by a common brick wall and some with no division at all. He presented to the Commission eleven testimonial letters from the neighbors in support of the golf cart barn, as well as a petition from the remaining 24 houses and signed by almost everyone on the street and the adjoining four corners of the intersection of Burroweed and Ironwood. Mr. Bagato asked if anyone was in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Mike Peters, neighbor, stated that the golf cart barn blends beautifully into the existing structure and that they have done a number of things to the house that has made the neighborhood better. Mr. Don Puckett, neighbor, concurred with Mr. Peters' comments and said that everything they have done to the house has improved the neighborhood look and it blends in with the architecture. Mr. Stan Smith, neighbor, stated that Mr. Toia's house looks 100% better than when it was first purchased. Mr. Richard Motts, neighbor, also agreed with the comments made and stated that this was a rental house and now is one of the finer homes on the street. Aesthetically the golf cart barn has filled in an area that needed to be upgraded. Mr. Bagato asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the project. Ms. Suzanne Pride, neighbor, stated that what Mr. Toia has done to his home has improved the neighborhood, but the problem is that Mr. Toia when he requested a permit in January 2006, described it as a gate enclosure not a golf cart barn. He has misrepresented himself to the City as to what he was building. None of the neighbors who spoke here today have their common wall next to Mr. Toia except for me and according to the ordinance there must be a five foot setback. Mr. Toia has also added building material that overlaps the common wall onto my property. When I had taken down my juniper bushes I noticed there was some sort of pipe that was attached to his roof that came over the common wall onto my property to drain whatever he was draining from his property. He did not have a permit to build the roof, the garage door and the inside wall that is inches away from our common wall. These homes were built 30 years ago and are golf course cottages and his home is a single family residence that is not attached as all these other homes are. The other homes have one car garages where his is a two car garage and is not part of what is called the G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008WR080212.doc Page 3 of 18 t ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 cottages at Shadow Mountain. I am requesting that the law be applied to Mr. Toia in reference to the five foot setback and removal of building material that is overlapping on the common wall. After discussing this with other people I was told this was not legal. When I came down to check into the permits, I found out that he had not filed for any permits. He was granted a permit to build a gate enclosure on January 23, 2006 and that is the only permit that he applied for. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission basically is an aesthetic type group and this looks like a Code Enforcement type situation. Mr. Bagato stated that Code Enforcement did get involved that is why it came to the ARC for approval. Before variances go to Planning Commission we always bring it to ARC when there is a building issue involved on how it looks architecturally. Today the Commission is looking at it for aesthetic value only and how it blends in with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission or the City Council depending on appeal will ultimately have to decide whether or not they want this structure in this location. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission deals with the issue of the flashing. Mr. Bagato stated that it is a building issue and the building side of it will be addressed after we deal with the aesthetics and the setback. One of the things that will have to be determined is the property line. We are not sure if it is right down the middle of the wall or one side or the other. After we get through Planning Commission approval we are going to ask Mr. Toia for a survey of the property to verify where the property line is located. Commissioner Van Vliet expressed that the golf cart barn doesn't compliment the house and it looks like different architecture. It's probably not something that he would have voted for if it came in that way. However, he indicated that it was a far improvement over what the existing one was. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was influenced by that because the existing pictures looked awful. Mr. Bagato stated that technically it was permitted three years ago and grandfathered in and if someone tore it down we wouldn't necessarily let it be rebuilt without the variance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the overall elevation of the house would look better without it there. Commissioner DeLuna had to agree and stated that she didn't like the old wooden gate but she wasn't sure with what they put in there compliments the house or the neighborhood. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008WR080212.doc Page 4 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Architecturally it's pleasing in its style, but she didn't know if it enhances the neighborhood to have it there. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he wasn't bothered by the lack of a five foot setback. The other examples that were shown had a lot more architectural style and they blend in better with the main structure. Commissioner Gregory agreed that it didn't quite blend in but it didn't bother him architecturally. It's not unsightly or unattractive, but it's not great. The owner did not have the opportunity to mimic the same battered wall that is on the corner of the existing house. It's just unfortunate that the normal procedure was not followed to avoid this kind of iness. Commissioner Gregory didn't think that they would be able to come up with some kind of consensus here today aesthetically. He asked Mr. Bagato how they would vote on this. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant did have a legal permit for the enclosed area without the garage door so technically we would treat this as if he was coming in and trying to convert that framed area into a garage golf cart barn. He could take the garage door off and rip off the inside wall and he'd have a hole in the framing that was already permitted and that would remain. Mr. Bagato said that the issue for the variance is because if it was presented as a golf cart barn it wouldn't meet the setback and that is the need for the variance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the other issue is that it is obviously higher than the common wall. That is a problem when you are the neighbor and you are looking at that ugly side. It certainly would have helped if it did not exceed an existing wall height. Commissioner Gregory stated that if this were to go through the process and the applicant was forced to remove the golf cart barn factor it would still look the same off the street. Mr. Bagato stated it would look the same but with a hole in it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that some of the examples are more in keeping with the architecture, however he thought it was approvable but not great. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the applicant's roof was sloping toward the neighbor's house towards the common wall and the gutter was directly above the common wall. Mr. Bagato stated that this issue would have to be addressed from the Building side with a survey and that there probably will be some changes to the gutters and the flashing G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008\AR080212.doc Page 5 of 18 M1 ARCHITECTURAL REV�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 based on building codes. Commissioner Vuksic stated that aesthetically that bothered him and also the light on the front of the barn. Other than that it was aesthetically approvable. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was still bothered by the fact that it was higher than the adjacent wall. If it were down and not exceeding the adjacent wall and all the neighbors were happy with it he would probably go along with it if it didn't look so bad on the neighbor's side. He didn't know how they would get it down now without having to tear off the whole top of it and re-doing it all. Mr. Toia stated that the front wall was approved, finaled and signed off. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it was the roof that wasn't permitted and it was the roof that brought it above the adjacent wall and the permit states that it be equivalent to the common wall and not above it. Commissioner Gregory suggested taking a vote to see whether we would approve this or not aesthetically. If we were to have a motion made with respect to the aesthetic review maybe this can be passed on to Planning Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that aesthetically it is approvable and made a motion to approve the aesthetics of it. Commissioner Gregory seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Bagato if there should be some conditions attached to this approval. Mr. Bagato stated that even though it is built, we are treating it as if it came to us today for the unpermitted portions then we could have it modified and make that a part of the approval. Commissioner Gregory stated that it should be highly conditioned because they would not have approved it. Commissioner Vuksic revised his motion to include conditions. He stated that the roof needed to be modified so that it slopes where the water drains towards the front and back and not on the neighbor's property; removal of the drain pipe; removal of the headlights on the front of the addition and replace with a more appropriate light fixture that would enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Gregory stated that we have an amendment to the motion and as the person who seconded it; he seconded the motion with the amendments. Mr. Toia asked the Commission if it would serve any purpose to raise the common wall by one course of block. Commissioner Gregory felt that this would be best brought up in Planning Commission because there may be some means to compromise or G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2006�AR080212.doc Page 6 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 work something out. It is something that cannot be determined here. The Commission took a vote. The vote was a split decision which basically is a NO decision. Mr. Bagato stated that unless Commissioners Hanson and Lambell listen to the tapes they will have to keep abstaining on this issue at future meetings. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his only issue was the height. If the height were not to exceed the wall he would be okay with the motion with conditions. Ms. Aylaian stated that the Commission would have to continue the item until the next meeting to allow the item to stay open. Commissioner Van Vliet made a motion to continue, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant a continuance. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Hanson and Lambell absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 08-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TAKO TYKO, 5010 Venice Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90019 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of signs; Wachovia Securities LOCATION: 73-993 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Swartz presented the staff report and summarized the project. Staff informed the applicant that sign S3 covers an architectural feature and the words on the S4 sign were too large based on the actual building. Staff also feels that everything on the monument sign was too crammed together on the triangle. Mr. Don Crispis, representative, referred to Sign S3 as the main entrance sign. The signs are basically per letter the same size all the way around; about a foot high. Wachovia in its brand likes to G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080212.doc Page 7 of 18 � � . ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 stack its logo where it can. They would move it up so that it would look a little more symmetrical. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that one sign was bigger than the other sign and stated that we don't like our buildings to look like big signs. Mr. Crispis stated that they are meeting the Planning requirements for the signage for the frontage allowed for each of the signs in question and trying to make it symmetrical. Mr. Crispis described the sizes and locations of the signs. He stated that they would have to reduce the Wachovia Securities and the logo by 31% just to get it to fit in there with letters other than a B. Mr. Swartz stated that the letters on S2 are one foot and the letters on S3 and S4 are 1.3 feet for the W and S and then they go from ten inches to one foot. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant's signs were too big. The Commission is looking for signage that doesn't overwhelm the architecture. It's not just a matter of exceeding square footage, the signs just don't look right. He recommended that they shrink it and work it out with staff. Mr. Crispis stated that if the Commission was saying it is too big then you are superseding your planning code. Mr. Bagato stated that the sign ordinance says that every sign has to be reviewed in the way it blends architecturally with the building, so everything is not just based on square footage. When buildings come through we look at the way signs are designed on the building�. He informed the applicant that he would have to look for a different location on the building or make it fit within this area. Commissioner Gregory stated that it is not that we are saying that you can't have the signs we are just saying to make it fit. Mr. Crispis asked if they could make a determination on the sizes because he didn't want to bring something back that was still not right. Commissioner Vuksic informed the applicant that he could send changes to Mr. Swartz so he can pass them along to the Commission for an opinion. Commissioner Vuksic stated that previous AG Edwards on the building compliments the building; in fact the building may look a little blank without it. The applicant's proposed sign overwhelms the building and looks way too crammed and fighting with the edges. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minute5�2008�AR080212.doc Page 8 of 18 � � ' , ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Mr. Bagato informed the applicant that if the client is not happy with the decision made here today, they can appeal to City Council and they will make the ultimate decision. Mr. Crispis asked if there would be a determination today one way or another on the size. Mr. Bagato stated that the recommendation is that it be reduced and if you don't want to reduce it then you can ask for a decision, but if you will work with us to reduce the size then it would come back to the next meeting with revised drawings and get it closer to approval by this Commission. The applicant was concerned about the time involved for the approval process. Commissioner Gregory suggested sending a PDF of the revised signs in advance to Mr. Swartz to get an informal opinion expressed by the Commissioners and if it looks like you nailed it then you don't have to show up and it should be approved by minute motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant a continuance to allow applicant to reduce the size of Signs S3 and S4. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioner Hanson and Lambell absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 08-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRAD/BRADLEY SIGN ADVERTISING, 9450 7 Street Suite D, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wall sign; Guaranty Bank. LOCATION: 72-625 Highway 111 ZONE: PC 3-SP Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He informed the Commission that they are requesting several signs to be placed on the building. The building was 155 linear feet and each sign is about 60 square feet so that goes over what the sign ordinance requires. Staff is recommending that they either have Sign A and D or Sign C and B. The applicant doesn't want to reduce the "Guaranty" sign that currently exists. They are keeping G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FileslARC Minutes�2008W,R080212.doc Page 9 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 the "Guaranty" and either relocating it or shifting it over and adding "Bank". The Commission could recommend shrinking the whole sign and redoing it but cost wise they would like to keep the "Guaranty" since it already exists on certain parts of the building and just add "Bank", but staff feels that it is too much. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Mr. Swartz's suggestion for the east bound traffic would benefit having the sign on the side because people would be looking right at the sign as they are driving towards the building, while the west bound traffic will be on the other side of Highway 111 further away from the building. They would actually pick up the sign on the side facing Highway 111. I would think from their standpoint for wanting to get the most out of their signage that would work great. Mr. Swartz stated that the applicant is also proposing smaller "Realty Executives" signs on the building. Mr. Jim Hydle, representative, gave a brief history and description of the project. These signs were originally put up in 2001 and at that time, Guaranty's marketing group was focusing on the term "Guaranty" and "Bank" wasn't as important to them as it is now. Also since that time they have changed their color scheme where the word "Bank" is now all green. The purpose of moving things around was to keep the word "Guaranty" and not have the expense of making any new signs. The letters for the "Realty Executives" signs are flat cut out and non-illuminated. Commissioner Vuksic asked for clarification on the channel lettering for "Realty Executives". Mr. Hydle indicated that they show several options and the single face cabinet is shown in error. The correct term for this sign is reverse channel back lighted sign display. Commissioner Gregory stated that it wasn't a can. Mr. Bagato stated that it's not a can but the white part of the sign will light up. Commissioner Gregory asked if the representative could go through each sign. Mr. Hydle stated that on Sign A there is an existing set of letters on the side facing the parking lot; we are going to remove the "Realty Executive" signs, repair that wall, relocate those letters and manufacture new letters reading "Bank". Sign B is basically the same as Sign A, but we are adding the word "Bank" so in doing that we have to relocate the word "Guaranty" to the left and center it on the wall. Sign C you can't see because of the tree, so as a consequence we are going to move the word "Guaranty" over and take the existing "Bank" off and manufacture G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word Files�P.RC Minutes�2008�,4R080212.doc Page 10 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 new signs that say "Bank". Sign D is a mirror image of Sign C. Sign E is the "Realty Executives" sign and Sign F we are removing "Realty Executives" and putting "Guaranty Bank" there. Commissioner DeLuna suggested taking "Realty Executives" off the door and move it down. Commissioner Gregory stated that there if it were lowered on that wall so it's not competing with "Guaranty Bank". The Commission and applicant discussed the location of these signs. They also discussed color matching the background of the sign to the same color as the building. The Commission asked Mr. Swartz to restate what staff recommends. Mr. Swartz pointed out the signs and locations for each that staff is recommending due to the square footage of the building. He mentioned that they cannot get both signs on the same frontage to meet our code. The Commissioner reviewed and discussed the signs and their locations on the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they used the sign on the west side of the building and the sign facing Highway 111 closer to the east side then both of those signs would be acceptable as presented here. There has to be one sign on the east part and one on the west part, you can keep both on the east part and eliminate the two on the west part because then the two on the east part would be right next to each other. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to continue with conditions; seconded by Commissioner DeLuna. Commissioner Gregory informed the applicant that he could submit his suggested revisions via email to Mr. Swartz for review. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant a continuance subject to: 1) of the four signs proposed along Highway 111 that two of the signs be eliminated and no two signs are on the same side of the building or are book matched on the building; 2) on the side where there is a "Realty Executives" sign and an "Guaranty Bank" sign proposed on the same surface that the "Realty Executives" sign be removed; 3) where there is a "Guaranty Bank" sign and a "Realty Executives" sign on north elevation E that the "Realty Executives" sign be moved down so that it is below the soffit that the "Guaranty Bank" sign sits on; 4) "Realty Executives" be centered on its wall surface; and, 5) the "Realty Executives" sign that is on the glass be eliminated. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008\AR080212.doc Page 11 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 4. CASE NO: PP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL LANG, COMMERCE REALTY, 149 Palos Verde Blvd Ste E, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan amendment and architectural review for an extensive remodel and minor addition to an existing 76,393 sq. ft. retail center: EI Paseo Plaza and Marketplace (Jensen's) LOCATION: 73-547 to 73-613 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Action: Continued due to lack of quorum. 5. CASE NO: GPA 07-02 / C/Z 07-01 / PP 07-09 / CUP 07-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WLC ARCHITECTS, INC., PHUC TRAN, 10470 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of architecture for a new 42,512 square foot Administration Building; Coachella Valley Water District. LOCATION: 75-515 Hovley Lane East ZONE: SI Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that this project was reviewed a couple of months ago as a miscellaneous item. The building was 52 feet in height and it has since been reduced to 40 feet in height. He presented the elevations and stated that this was without any landscaping. From residential to building it will be 200 feet set back from property. Commissioner DeLuna asked for the height on the two story condominiums across the street. Mr. Swartz stated that it was around 25 feet. Commissioner DeLuna wanted to know what the continuity was of the 40 foot height with the other commercial buildings around it. Mr. Swartz stated that it blends in vvith the other commercial buildings and that the overall height of the zone, Service Industrial is 35 feet. If they want it to be comparable to the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080212.doc Page 12 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 surrounding buildings in the area, we would want it around 35 feet in height. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the percentage of space was above the 35 feet. Mr. Swartz stated that the main parapet is right at 30 feet so the percentage above the 35 feet was minimal compared to the overall height. He suggested that they could on certain tower elevations lower the pitch a little. Commissioner DeLuna asked if this sits down below the street level and how far. Mr. Swartz answered that it was three feet. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the height wasn't really an issue; it's a detached building and not right next door to anything. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they were getting on the roof. Mr. Phuc Tran, Architect, stated that there was a stairway and an elevator up to the roof for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the parapet heights were in relation to the mechanical equipment. Mr. Tran answered that it was about three or four feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned with the west elevation. Mr. Tran stated that you will see a little of the mechanical screen wall on the west elevation facing Beacon Hill. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the screen wall looks as high as the ridge of the main roof element and asked if the mechanical equipment was that high. Mr. Tran stated that with the mechanical curb it would be about seven to eight feet high. The unit is six feet or so with the mechanical curb and then you need room for flashing for the roof to come up so you would want at least fourteen inches for mechanical curb. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could have more of a continuous element there that connects the sloped roof elements. Looking at the west elevation on the right side of it there is a nice hip roof and back from that is the screen. He asked if there was some way they could r�un that element across to continue it back from the hip to maintain those lines. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the windows were pretty close to the surface of the walls. There was a lot of windows and he did not see any shadow lines which is probably an accurate depiction. Mr. Tran stated that they have a twelve inch CMU wall and where the windows occur there would be eight inch CMU. The Commission reviewed and discussed the shadow lines. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that on the north elevation there are a couple of roofs that have steeper pitches than the others. He also pointed out another bigger one on the north elevation with a G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008�AR080212.doc Page 13 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 steep roof and asked it was steeper. Mr. Tran said that that was the original pitch and when they had to lower the building they had to revise the pitch to a 40 foot high roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it would hurt them to shallow the pitch of that element to match the other pitches. Mr. Tran stated that they could take a look at that but indicated that it was getting too squatty. The two roofs in front will help make the building look less squatty. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would show a lot more of the building surface if they flattened the plan. Commissioner Gregory asked if they were truncating the tower just to maintain the maximum roof height and if so, he advised them not to do that because it would look better if they didn't. Mr. Tran agreed. Commissioner Gregory stated that penetrating the maximum height with some type of architectural feature is a good thing and makes a building more interesting, but trying to keep everything below a certain height makes buildings less interesting. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were two huge air handlers on the roof; was it one big system and how was it controlled. Mr. Tran stated that there would be one for the first floor and one for the second floor. It is a water cooler system with a mechanical closure at grade level that feeds the water to the air handlers. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wanted to move the project forward and as far as screening the mechanical equipment he asked if staff would review the applicant's solution. Mr. Levine stated that the way the staff report was written up it only talks about the building and architecture and what they were looking for was landscaping as well. He indicated that Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager had talked with Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, and that she could comment on that. Ms. Hollinger stated that they have been working with the landscape architect on the design and they have come in and made some changes that we have suggested and we are fine with those changes at this stage. Mr. Swartz handed out copies of the landscape plans and the Commission reviewed them. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008WR080212.doc Page 14 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Commissioner Vuksic made the motion to approve with the condition that the applicants restudy the screening of the mechanical equipment creating an architectural feature that connects some of the other hip roof forms and reviewed by staff, and that the elevator tower be allowed to come to a point rather than being truncated. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping subject to: 1) a restudy of the mechanical equipment screening to create an architectural feature; and 2) allowing the elevator tower to come to a point. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioner Hanson and Lambell absent. 6. CASE NO: SA 08-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC. 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to an approved sign program to change a location of a sign; Law Offices of Mark McGowan. LOCATION: 72-630 Fred Waring ZONE: O.P. SP Action: Continued due to lack of quorum. NOTE: Mr. Bagato presented Case PP 06-11, which he requested be added to the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to add this item. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008V1R080212.doc Page 15 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 200E 7. 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 construction drawings for Wachovia Savings. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: GPA, C1Z, PPICUP 08-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 85,496 square foot Riverside County Sheriff's Station including a warehouse building with a central plant and a bike impound structure with a rooftop helipad: Riverside Sheriff s Station. LOCATION: 73-700 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that it is a ten-acre site, plus or minus some land that has to be worked out for street widening along Gerald Ford. Just to the west of the project is the maintenance area for Marriott Shadow Ridge and across the street it is zoned for residential. On the south and east side of the property it is zoned residential and owned by the Redevelopment Agency. It is actually designated for Resort/Commercial which could be hotels or timeshares in the general plan. We will be going to City Council with a general plan amendment and a change of zone turning this into a public facility. The Sheriff's Station is G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes\2008WR080212.doc Page 16 of 18 ' � ,�; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 looking for a new regional center because the valley is growing and will serve Palm Desert, La Quinta and some of the unincorporated areas. The main sheriff's station is about 55,000 square feet with an evidence warehouse towards the back of the building. Because they are changing to a P-zone there is no development standards for setbacks and height, but the applicant and architects have worked with staff on trying to maintain a lower profile building. It is best described as kind of desert contemporary using various types of block and different colors. Mr. Bagato passed around a materials board for the Commission's review. Mr. Bagato stated that the height on the building from the finished floor is between eighteen and twenty six feet. From Gerald Ford it will be taller and more particular on the east end of the site because of the grade. It is a large site so it expands over 300 feet and has a drop in that area but it will look well with the landscaping design and the berming. He identified a 1,300 square foot building towards the back parking lot area that will house a bike impound with a helicopter landing pad on top for emergency purposes. This will be located towards the Shadow Ridge portion but away from all the residential zoning around it. Initially there was some discussion of a six foot diameter microwave dish that has since disappeared and not a part of the application at this time. There will be some minor site plan changes based on comments from Public Works. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the only negative comment he had was the parapet where you have the sign and you made a mass out of it at the end. It is great except that it ends pretty abruptly and it looks like it's going to be visible. He stated that they would need to do something to finish that idea. Mr. Robert Wolfe, representative, stated that they could pull that further in. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was a very attractive looking desert building. Mr. Wolfe said that they have workecJ very closely with staff and they have been very helpful. Commissioner DeLuna stated that it looks absolutely wonderful and asked how loud the helicopter was when it lands. The applicant could not answer and Commissioner DeLuna asked if there had been any sound studies made because that probably would be an issue that would come up. Mr. Bagato stated that he did have an initial sound study from the environmental consultant and they anticipate it to be around 90 decibels; taking off and landing. We are looking at addressing some of that and working with them on trying to identify some areas where they can come in and try to G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008�AR080212.doc Page 17 of 18 ���' , , �' �, ARCHITECTURAL RE�IEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 follow the main corridor of the streets instead of flying over residential. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the mechanical screening on the roof was a metal candle screen and was all the equipment in there. Mr. Wolfe indicated that was correct. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the skylight wells were raised skylights with an angled top on them. The applicant answered yes and stated that they are called light monitors and used for day lighting in the offices. They are two to three feet tall and below the parapets. Commissioner DeLuna asked if this was LEED certified and the applicant indicated that it would be LEED certified. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, indicated that they will have to make some changes to the landscaping because of comments made by Public Works regarding the location of the driveway and adjustments to the tree species. Commissioner DeLuna moved to approve it subject to landscape review. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to landscape review by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. TONY B GA PRINCIPAL PL NER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080212.doc Page 18 of 18