Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-13 , . � �, �-��'-� � CITY OF PALM DESERT � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES Aprii 13, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 6 1 Chris Van Vliet X 7 John Vuksic X 7 Karel Lambell X 7 Pam Touschner X 6 1 Allan Levin X 7 Ken Stendell X 7 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Bryce White, Project Administrator Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2010; Minutes of the March 23, 2010 meeting will be approved at the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the March 9, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 7- 0. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL RE"�W COMMISSION °wrr+' ' MINUTES April 13, 2010 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-132 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HAROLD SIDDONS, 37-816 Driscoll Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of residential paint color. LOCATION: 37-816 Driscoll ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant has painted the base of the house pistachio green, and trim of the house tan. The original color of the applicant's home was an off creamy white. The applicant repainted the exterior of the home without obtaining approval per Section 25.56.510 to non- desert colors that are not in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Numerous neighbors have called in and complained regarding the color the applicant has selected. Code Enforcement went out and cited the applicant and requested the applicant receive planning's approval. Upon conducting a field investigation, staff found that the colors chosen by the applicant did not match the surrounding neighborhood. With the complaints staff has received, staff feels that the Architectural Review Commission deny this request and make a recommendation. Mr. Swartz presented a paint color that the applicant has selected as an alternate color choice. Mr. Harold Siddons, applicant stated that he has lived in the valley for 25 years. He and his children painted his house and didn't realize that an approval was required. He explained that he likes the color green and that is why he chose this particular color. Commissioner Gregory said that since the applicant likes green he asked if there were sage type greens within the earth pallet that would be acceptable to the City. Mr. Swartz answered yes as long as it was repainted in character with the surrounding area. Commissioner Gregory asked if staff could give the applicant direction towards the type of green that would more likely be G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2010\AR100413min.doc Page 2 of 15 � ARCHITECTURAL F�r'IEW COMMISSION `�` MINUTES April 13, 2010 accepted. Mr. Swartz stated that staff could help the applicant with the color. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was important that staff provide an acceptable range of colors and that the applicant chooses the color. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue Case MISC 10-232 subject to submitting alternate colors for review and approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARC VISION, Leslie Rice, 150 Westpark Way Ste 275, Dallas, TX 76040 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Fa�ade remodel and parapet extension; Panera Bread. LOCATION: 76-075 Hwy 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated this was continued from a previous meeting and changes are presented. Staff worked with the applicant with a design that would be acceptable for their feature and help to match the existing building as best they could. He pointed out to the Commission the changes that were made to the entry features, stone around the window trim, roof tile, and screening of the A/C equipment. He stated that staff has no problems with the new design and is recommending approval. He said staff doesn't have enough information to approve the signage and landscaping at this time. Mr. Bagato stated that they will be enhancing the landscaping and removing the dead landscape that is currently there. The applicant also stated that they will be more in line with the City's water efficient ordinance. The Commission reviewed and discussed the changes made to the elevations. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out the clay roof tile and stated that it has some bulk to it and thought it would be more appropriate to do the little roof in metal so that it is not adding six inches to its thickness; which will make it look bulky. Mr. Justin Knepper, Architect suggested a standing seam roof. Commissioner G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2010WR100413min.doc Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION �✓ ' MINUTES April 13, 2010 Gregory asked if it was being suggested they have tile out in front and standing seam in the rear. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that was correct. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the A/C equipment was screened and below the parapet. Mr. Knepper explained that all the equipment would be behind the parapet. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the roof plan. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is a guarantee that the equipment will not be seen. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission could condition their approval and staff will go out and inspect. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the four-sided element and pointed out a little nub at the end that would be visible from Highway 111. He said that when that is on the drawings it tends to end up that way in the field. Mr. Knepper stated there would be no nub on the four-sided element. Mr. Knepper asked if there was a color preference on the standing seam metal roof and the Commission sug�ested chocolate brown. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant approval subject to: 1) incorporating standing seam metal roof on the entry feature in chocolate brown; 2) a clean 4-sided tower without nubs; 3) staff to inspect A/C equipment during construction to ensure that it is below the parapet height; and 4) signage and landscaping not approved at this. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIMON ORCHOVER/APPLE STORE, 1 Infinite Loop, MS 52 Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new storefront design located within the EI Paseo Village Shopping Center; Apple Store. LOCATION: 73-445 Suite 2 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Bagato presented the site plan for this project and stated that this is a new store front design for Apple, Inc and located in the EI Paseo Village. This is a modern design utilizing bead blasted G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010�AR100413min.doc Page 4 of 15 � ARCHITECTURAL F�1EW COMMISSION `�t MINUTES April 13, 2010 metal. They are using clear glass from fioor to top with no butt joints and no other types of framing. Mr. Bagato presented the materials board to the Commission. He stated that in staff's opinion this is very modern, clean and well designed. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Van Vliet liked the overall design and stated that it is simple, very contemporary and will be a great asset. Commissioner Gregory wondered if the stainless steel was bead blasted enough so that it doesn't create sheen. Mr. B.J. Siegel, representative explained that it was a proprietary finish and doesn't have glare issues. Commissioner Touschner asked if it was hot to the touch. Mr. Siegel stated that it faces north and would receive a very limited number of hours of sun exposure. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO: MISC 10-121 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new store front design within the EI Paseo Village Shopping Center; Kate Spade New York. LOCATION: 73-425 Suite 103 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Bagato presented another store front design for Kate Spade New York located within the EI Paseo Village currently under construction. Staff is recommending approval without signage. The Commission reviewed and discussed the drawings. Mr. John Vuksic, Architect stated that the powdered coated design on the color board will go around the perimeter and is a clean design. He described the awnings and the details of how they are connected, and the frosted plexi-glass panels. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FileslA Minutes�2010�.4R100413min.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION � ' MINUTES April 13, 2010 Mr. Vuksic stated that he would return with more detailed signage. Mr. Bagato stated that all the signs on the front are through the sign program and would be approved when additional information is received. Commissioner Lambell asked how the plexi-glass would hold up in the heat. Mr. Vuksic stated that the fact that this is on the north side makes it much less a concern as far as age ability. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 5. CASE NO: MISC 10-127 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LINANE/DREWS ARCHITECTS, 3500 W. Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91505 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new storefront design within the EI Paseo Village Shopping Center; Bebe. LOCATION: 73-425 Suite 103 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Bagato presented another store front design for Bebe located within the EI Paseo Village. He stated that this design has a clean and modern look and would be one of the smaller storefronts. Staff is recommending approval without signage. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesVi Minutes�2010WR100413min.doc Page 6 of 15 ` ARCHITECTURAL Fi�..1EW COMMISSION �...f MINUTES April 13, 2010 6. CASE NO: MISC 10-122 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RUSS CLARKE, 35-450 Pegasus Court, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a wall exception. LOCATION: 48-480 Prairie Drive ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a six-foot block wall with six-foot decorative . block columns located 12 feet from street side yard face of curb. The six-foot block wall will extend from the rear property line and connect to the front side yard gate. There will be four decorative block columns spaced out, which will provide relief. The columns are six feet in height and 1'4" in width. Landscape plans illustrating drought tolerant plants and decorative rock have been reviewed by the Landscape Specialist and a condition has been placed on the project that landscaping plans must be approved before issuance of a building permit. The applicant has agreed to this condition. Currently, there is not a block wall or gate located on the property. The applicant is proposing to construct the wall to give the house more privacy along with creating a larger enclosed side yard. The wall per code at 20 feet from face of curb would leave five to seven feet from the home. All other walls within the area or located 12 feet from face of curb and the applicant would be in keeping with the surrounding area. Chapter 25.56.195 states that fences 61 inches in height to 72 inches in height must be 20 feet from face of curb. In the past, the Architectural Review Commission has made the finding that the 20-foot setback can sometimes be difficult to achieve in established neighborhoods. In most instances, the Commission has approved a six foot wall set back 12 feet from the curb. The applicant is trying to improve the overall look of their existing home. Commissioner Gregory asked if this was in conformance with other homes in the area and Mr. Swartz stated that was correct. Mr. Bagato stated that it is a side yard which is always difficult. G:\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010\AR100413min.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE`�W COMMISSION � � MINUTES April 13, 2010 Commissioner Van Vliet asked what type of material would be used on the columns. Mr. Clarke explained that the wall will be stucco and the columns will have 2" X 10" decorative natural stone pieces that all come interlocking. A motion for approval was moved and seconded. Commissioner Touschner asked that a sample of the stone be submitted. Mr. Clarke stated that he could bring in a sample for review. The motion was amended subject to applicant submitting a sample of the stone to staff for review. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) staff reviewing the stone proposed for wall; and 2) subject to landscape review and approval. Motion carried 7- 0. 7. CASE NO: MISC 10-124 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABRAHAM & ALEJANDRA MONTEZ, 44-491 San Jose Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVA� SOUGHT: Approval of a wall exception. LOCATION: 44-491 San Jose Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a 5' wrought iron fence and two gates with 5' block columns located 8' from front yard face of curb. The applicant has submitted a site plan that shows the wall per code at 15' from face of curb. There are three mature trees that would have to be removed in order to achieve the set back. The fence will extend the length of the front property line, which is 80' long. There will be two 5' tall wrought iron gates. One gate will be located in front of the driveway, and the other located in the center of the property creating a main entrance. There will be seven block columns spaced out from 6' to 15'. The columns are 5' in height and 1'-4" in width. Mr. Swartz stated that landscape plans illustrating grass in the front yard have been reviewed by the Landscape Specialist and a G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010�AR100413min.doc Page 8 of 15 ' ARCHITECTURAL F�IEW COMMISSION `�++ • MINUTES April 13, 2010 condition has been placed on the project to create a 2' buffer from the back of curb by removing the grass and sprinklers. The applicant has agreed to this condition and is proposing decorative rocks or drought tolerant landscaping. Currently, there is not a block wall or gate located on the property. The applicant is proposing to construct the fence with gates to give the house more privacy along with creating an enclosed front yard. Chapter 25.56.195 states that fences greater than 42" in height, but less than 61", must be 15' from face of curb. In the past, the Architectural Review Commission has made the finding that the 15' setback can sometimes be difficult to achieve in established neighborhoods with variables such as trees, location of patio covers, equipment, and existing hardscape. In most instances, the Commission has approved a 5' wall set back 11' from the curb. In this case, the 5' fence is setback 8'. The applicant is trying to improve the overall look of their existing home. The setback is difficult to achieve due to the size of their yard and location of mature trees. The Commission reviewed the wrought iron and the chain link fencing on both sides of the property line, which belonged to the neighbors. Juan, a representative of the applicant stated that the applicant wanted to add the wrought iron fencing with the pilasters to create more room for their children to play. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the trees in the front were 15' back from the curb and felt that the wall could be shifted back and still work with the trees and felt that 8' would be too tight. Mr. Bagato stated that they wouldn't want to be closer than 5' to 6' because of the roots. Commissioner Levin stated that if the chain link doesn't come out far enough you would have a gap between the chain link and the wrought iron. Juan stated that they could add another post and add more chain link. Mr. Swartz stated that chain link is not permitted so they would have to add more wrought iron. The Commission discussed the setback and the height of the wall. Commissioner Touschner stated that she had a concern with how it was going to look on the return side. Commissioner Levin stated that if it was returned all the way back to the existing fence and parallel to the chain link it wouldn't need columns; it would look fine with the wrought iron. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2010\AR100413min.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE"�W COMMISSION �' ' MINUTES April 13, 2010 Commissioner Stendell stated that with these small lots they do not have much back yard or side yard and is not opposed to the wrought iron and pilasters and made a motion to approve the applicants request subject to 1) the side property line be treated in the manner consistent with the front; and 2) the wall to remain wrought iron and never changed to full masonry block wall. Commissioner Gregory wondered if the pilasters should swing around the corners on both sides. Commissioner Stendell stated that what he was looking for in his condition was to bring the side property line consistent to the existing wood fence on the chain link side and accommodate the hedge on the other side. Commissioner Stendell amended his motion with the same conditions with one exception, 1) the wrought iron be brought back on the sides to a pilaster on the chain link side with wrought iron to match the front. Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Levin asked if the double gate would remain even though there would be no access to the back yard and Juan stated that it would remain. Commissioner Touschner felt that the fence needed to be pushed back as far as it can go. The Commission reviewed the trees and the proposed setback of 8'. Commissioner Gregory asked Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist what would be a comfortable setback for landscape purposes and Ms. Hollinger stated that for a parkway it should have a 6' minimum setback. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that further the wall was pushed out to the curb would crimp the entire street. Commissioner Gregory called for a vote for an 8' setback with a provision that the fence can never be converted to a masonry wall and the return to go back to a pilaster on each side. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5. Commissioner Gregory asked for another motion. Commissioner Van Vliet made a motion with the same conditions with the exception of a 13' setback with L-footings toward the curb. Commissioner Lambell made the second. Motion failed 3-4. Commissioner Levin asked if they could structure the motion in a way that instead of being measured from the curb it was measured 5' from the trees. Commissioner Lambell stated that it is always safer to measure from the edge of curb. Commissioner Levin stated that part of the problem is that the proposed drawings conflict with the proposal. Commissioner Touschner suggested this G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010WR100413min.doc Page 10 of 15 � ARCHITECTURAL F�IEW COMMISSION �„r MINUTES April 13, 2010 be continued until the applicant is able to submit the corrected information. The representative once again asked for 10' from the curb. Commissioner Touschner made a motion with the same conditions with the exception of a 10' setback. Commissioner Vuksic made the second. Motion paSsed 6-1 , with Commissioner Van Vliet voting NO. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) 10' from the face of curb and returned to pilasters on each side; 2) tie wall into the existing side fencing; 3) wall to remain wrought iron and never changed to full masonry; 3) L-footings toward curb; and 4) subject to landscape review and approval. Motion carried 6-1-0-0, with Commissioner Van Vliet voting NO. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi- family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C.(4) Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that this is a preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for the architecture of a new condominium resort hotel consisting of 67 multi-family residential units and 81 hotel rooms. This is two buildings separated by a courtyard in the middle of the project. The applicant is requesting from Public Works to abandon the frontage road. The frontage road is being eliminated as part of their design to give them an increased 50' setback from Highway 74 and provide a nice area for some landscaping and a new walkway along that area. This will transition off EI Paseo and will be a five-star hotel, restaurant and condominiums. They are proposing four stories above a two-story underground parking. The height limit in the area is 35' and they are requesting a height exception in an G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010\AR100413min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE°rw,�W COMMISSION �r++' ' MINUTES April 13, 2010 area zoned planned commercial, which allows for height exceptions. The building is modern architecture. Mr. Bagato presented the material board and discussed the colors and materials. He stated that there is some concern from staff with the architecture of it being four stories tall and suggested mitigating the visual impact of the residents on Ocotillo and Highway 74. He stated that coming down Highway 74 even with the 50' setback he was concerned that there wasn't enough relief in the buildings. Both of these buildings are over 200' long with only an 84' break in the middle and it reads as kind of flat. Although they are using a trellis system off the patio, his concern was that it is being repeated so much without a break that it reads busy. He suggested breaking up the massing in the middle by providing some kind of element or change in the material to give it more vertical elements or step back the top floor in a terrace type effect. The applicant is going for a high end contemporary design that they feel the market will support. He has discussed his concerns with the applicant and stated that staff is recommending approval as a whole and would like the Commission to give their comments on the design. Mr. Matt Joblin, PDH Partners, Inc. described how they chose the site for the hotel and their plans for their project. He expressed that their goal is to create a truly five-star hotel experience that anchors the EI Paseo experience. His team consisting of Richard Riveire, Architect, Jim Hyatt, Landscaping and Mr. Dale Yonkin, Nadel, Inc., presented architectural elevations and described the landscaping design for the site. Commissioner Vuksic was impressed with the design, the motor court and the fact that they absorbed the frontage road. He was in favor of the long line and felt that the components were so strong that it would work. He asked them for details of the white box and felt that it was important to have a clean edge. Mr. Riveire stated that the architecture of that piece relies on that sort of purity. Commissioner Vuksic said that it would be important not to have a big piece of cap flashing coming off the top. He mentioned the A/C units and understands that each room will have their own individual air conditioning unit and wanted to make sure that the applicant was confident there wouldn't be anything on the roof. Mr. Riveire stated that the units are proposed for the sides of the buildings and no condensers will be on the roof. Mr. Riveire described the trellis and lighting system and Mr. Joblin described the art sculpture located at the entry to the hotel. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2010�AR100413min.doc Page 12 of 15 � ARCHITECTURAL F�rr lEW COMMISSION �,�,r MINUTES April 13, 2010 Commissioner Levin asked Ms. Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer if Public Works would be signalizing the entrance. Ms. Canales stated that they would not. Commissioner Levin had concerns about not having a signal there. Mr. Joblin indicated that a traffic study was completed and it was determined that a signal was not needed. The Commission felt that it would be a very hard left hand turn. Mr. Joblin stated that he personally did not experience heavy traffic in that area during the times he was there. Mr. Yonkin stated that the residents of the condos would have a separate entrance. Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes are intermittent. Commissioner Touschner stated that vehicular traffic should know where to go once the traffic is in the entrance area. She suggested that they create a transition at the entrance. The applicants discussed that concern with the Commission. Commissioner Touschner had concerns with the height of the hotel and the tenants on Ocotillo and suggested that additional studies be prepared regarding the visual impact. Mr. Joblin stated that they went to the neighbors and presented this project to them and received their support. He pointed out that the mass is pushed towards the front as much as possible. He also said that from a financial standpoint for it to work they would have to make it four stories. Commissioner Levin expressed his concerns with the height and what the visual impact would be to the residents on Ocotitfo. Mr. Joblin stated that that most of the residents don't have windows facing that direction or they only have small kitchen windows. Once again he reminded the Commission that the residents were in support of the project. Mr. Bagato explained to the Commission that the height limit is 35' and it is measured from the average of the site so that end of the site would be 40' to 47' even without the fourth story. Commissioner Touschner asked if they talked with Sage Place across Highway 74 and Mr. Joblin stated that they did not and said that they were one story and the views were not in that direction; so they focused on the Ocotillo residents who would be the most impacted. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the highest point was off of the adjacent grade on the north end near Amago. Mr. Bagato stated that it was 63' and Amago was lower, around 40'. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2010\AR100413min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�'W COMMISSION 'ww+' ` MINUTES April 13, 2010 Mr. Bagato asked the Commission if they would like to see this again after submitting additional studies or were they comfortable with granting a preliminary approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this was such a large project it was hard to approve it and not see it again until the working drawings. He mentioned that the Commission is reviewing elevations and renderings that don't show how the west side marries into the north side and it is important. Commissioner Touschner suggested submitting views going south on Highway 74 as well as north. She also suggested the corner of Highway 74 and EI Paseo. She recommended that they submit a 3-D model. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue Case PP 09-507 with no changes in design and submittal of additional perspectives and 3D of project. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Items 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-313 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of signage; Revitalization Plan for EI Paseo Drive. LOCATION: EI Paseo ZONE: GC, SP, OP Ms. Grisa presented the EI Paseo Revitalization Plan for EI Paseo Drive and the Commission reviewed two renderings submitted regarding the median head and how it intersects the crosswalk. Mr. Bryce White, Project Administrator explained the two illustrations and the Commission reviewed the drawings. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval of Option C illustrating how the head of the median shall intersect the crosswalk. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioner Gregory and Lambell absent. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVi Minutes�2070WR100413min.doc Page 14 of 15 ` ARCHITECTURAL Fw,�.�'IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES April 13, 2010 VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Stendell, seconded by Commissioner Touschner to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioners Gregory and Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. ��-- r-- TONY AGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2010WR100413min.doc Page 15 of 15