Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-13 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 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 12 1 Chris Van Vliet X 12 1 John Vuksic X 12 1 Karel Lambell X 13 Pam Touschner X 8 5 Allan Levin X 13 Ken Stendell X 13 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Russell Grance, Director, Building & Safety Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 22, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the June 22, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Touschner abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 2 of 29 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 109-196 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID DEVINE, 77341 Florida Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wall exception. LOCATION: 77-341 Florida Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to build a block wall at reduced setbacks in the front and side yards of a corner lot residence. Additionally, the owner is seeking to raise a portion of a city built sound wall starting at the southeast corner to 8’ in height, step it down to 6’ and then down to 5’ for the remainder of the wall. Setbacks for a 6’ high wall remain at 20’ and 15’ for a 5’ high wall measured from the face of the curb. An exception is required to build this wall as requested. The applicant must match the city built sound wall with the same finish and materials where it’s proposed to be raised to 8’. The remainder of the wall will be finished in the stucco and paint to match the house. Wooden decorative gates will be placed in the west side yard and adjacent to the driveway to match the wooden garage door as depicted in the existing photos. The block wall proposed in the west side yard is allowed as shown and that portion does not require an exception, but it is a part of this project. Landscape is illustrated as a part of this exception and is subject to final approval by the landscape specialist. Staff researched public right-of-way dimensions and found Florida Avenue and Elkhorn Trail to both have a setback dimension of 12’ measured from curb face to property line. Both walls would need to move outside of that public right-of-way and measure 12’ from face of curb to the nearest portion of the wall. The east wall would need to be stepped in slightly to make this measurement and the front wall would need to be located 2’ further back. A 40’ triangle has been illustrated and does remain clear. That must be maintained to allow clear views of cross traffic. The applicant is aware of these ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 3 of 29 conditions and will be revising the plan to illustrate revised setbacks and to reduce the number of columns. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the wall exception with the above stated conditions. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the way the applicant moved the wall back from the previous drawing actually meets the ordinance. Ms. Grisa stated that you can have a 5’ wall 15’ back and the applicant is asking for an additional 3’ on the side yard. On Elkhorn he is asking for 6’ for the first two segments beyond the city built wall and 20’ back for 6’ in height. Commissioner Levin asked if the wall that wraps around was 8’ tall and Ms. Grisa stated that it was 8’ on the back side, right now it steps down that is the reason he wants to raise it to 8’. Commissioner Touschner asked if the same cap would be used and if the two columns would be extended. Ms. Grisa stated that the columns would have to be extended because from that portion it is 8’ and the applicant wants to bring it all the way around. There is a vacant lot across the street and he has had trouble with vandals jumping over plus it is open to the street. The applicant wants to raise the wall for sound issues and on his side of the property line it would step down from the 6’; then as it comes around the front yard it would drop down to 5’. Commissioner Vuksic asked why the city built the wall 12’ from the curb. Mr. Bagato stated that Public Works built the wall right outside the right-of-way on the property line when they did the sound study. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Public Works did not follow the wall ordinance when they built it. Mr. Bagato stated that they saw the design for the wall but they didn’t review the setbacks at that time because it was done during the Fred Waring widening project. Commissioner Stendell asked if the pilasters would have the same wall caps on them. Ms. Grisa stated that the ones that are part of the dark piece will match the city built wall, but after this point the applicant doesn’t have caps proposed on the columns and no cap proposed for the wall itself. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 4 of 29 Commissioner Levin asked if they were taking out the existing sidewalk and reconfiguring the one that comes from the front door and the applicant, Mr. David Devine answered yes. Commissioner Gregory asked why the wall on Florida Avenue currently violates our current setbacks; 12’ instead of 15’. Ms. Grisa stated that usually that occurs when something is in the way, but in this case there is nothing blocking it to keep it from moving further back on the front side. Mr. Devine stated that the reason for the wall is for safety, but stated that if 3’ is an issue he can definitely move that wall closer to the house. Commissioner Gregory stated that they didn’t want to set a precedent; there are rules for a reason. Mr. Devine stated that it was his understanding that he could have a 6’ wall with a 15’ setback and a 5’ wall with a 10’ setback. He indicated that further west on Florida Avenue there are a lot of the homes that have 5’ walls 10’ back. Commissioner Gregory asked staff what they thought of the 5’ wall 12’ off curb. Ms. Grisa stated that she would support moving it back to 15’. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the wall made a slight return instead of ending up on the pilaster they would probably end up with a better entry. Commissioner Lambell had a concern with the cap on the wall. She understands that the cap will not continue and said that the cap will really enhance the look of the wall as will the pilaster cap. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve subject to conditions. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the side yard would also be 15’. Commissioner Touschner stated that the side yard wall would look better if it was aligned with the wall that already exists. Commissioner Lambell made the second. Mr. Bagato asked if Commissioner Gregory wanted to add his suggestion to have a return on the wall. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was the applicant’s call. Commissioner Stendell asked if this was leaving it at the 12’ setback on the side to align. Commissioner Touschner answered yes and thought that the existing columns need to align. The Commission discussed the columns, setbacks and pilaster and recommended that the side yard wall setback be 12’ located outside of public right-of- way. The motion was amended and the vote was called. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 5 of 29 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to 1) increasing the city built portion of the wall to 8’; 2) main wall cap to match along entire wall; 3) front yard wall setback at 15’; 4) side yard wall setback at 12’ located outside of public right-of-way; and 5) applicant may replace city built pilaster caps (2) with caps to match all new portions of walls. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-200 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRADLEY & CHRISTINA HUNGERFORD, 43-460 Texas Ave, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a vinyl composite yard wall. LOCATION: 43-460 Texas Ave ZONE: R-1, 9,000 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 6’ high vinyl composite fence in the front yard facing a public street. Section 25.56.195 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance states walls and fences facing a public right-of-way must be decorative block, stucco, or wrought iron. The vinyl composite fence is located 20’-6” from property line. The vinyl fence is 8’ x 11’ with a side entry gate off the garage. The vinyl fence connects to a common block wall which runs the length of the side yard. On the north side of the house the fence is 40’ from property line and 5’ in width. The location and height of the fence meets development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Code Enforcement placed a “Stop Work Notice” on the property when work was being performed. The applicant came down to the Planning Department and was notified that a permit is needed and the material is not permitted unless an exception by the ARC is granted. The applicant explained that they have a swimming pool and the old fence was removed, leaving their side and rear yards exposed. Today the vinyl fence has been fully constructed for that reason. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 6 of 29 The applicant has submitted photos of two residents along Texas Avenue and one within Palm Desert Country Club that have vinyl fencing. Staff has determined that the 6’ vinyl composite fence facing the public right-of-way will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Touschner made the motion for approval and Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Levin stated that he drove the street and said there was an eclectic collection of fencing in that area. He mentioned that the ARC approved this type of fencing for a house on Abronia a couple months ago and felt they were not setting a precedent. Commissioner Gregory called for the vote. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 09-519 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II INC. Pamela Hardy, 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of fireplaces on tracts 31490 and tract 31490-1. LOCATION: 75-400 Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. She stated that this has been before the Commission a couple times regarding the B-vents on the roofs. At the last meeting, the Commission requested additional information from the applicant. Staff did request this to be on a roof plan to show the dimensions and height and the applicant provided the location on the roof plan and submitted the specifications that show how high it will be on the roof. This calls it out as 1’, but the applicant has stated that the vents will be a minimum of 1’; no higher than 2’. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 7 of 29 Ms. Pam Hardy, representative stated that the B-vents are shown in roof plan, as well as elevation location. They put a notation specifying the maximum and minimum height, because the minimum height is what is required by the specifications. They also added a notation that states in no instance will the top of the B-vent be above the ridge of the roof. The vents will be located in the back of the house and the back of the ridge is setback quite far from the front elevation. The B-vents would only be necessary when two conditions occur; when the buyer chooses the optional fireplace as, well as the optional outdoor patio trellis. This is the problem because they don’t want the direct vent underneath the covered trellis. She hopes this allays any concerns the Commission may have from a visual perspective. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned the height of the B-vents and said that they will be 1’ no higher than 2’, but in the specs it indicates 1’ minimum and asked why they would make them 2’. Ms. Hardy stated they probably won’t be 2’, but the operative is that they not be higher than the ridge or visible. They probably will be somewhere between 12” to 16”, but couldn’t say for certain. They have talked with their subs and they can do a little bit of an angle inside of the attic and still address code. They don’t want these vents to stick up any more than necessary because then it would affect the architecture of the house. They will keep it as low as they can but they also have to stay within what is required by code. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Lennox B-vent didn’t seem as bulky as the Superior vent and he didn’t have a problem with the Lennox. It looks slightly larger than a heating and air conditioning vent. The Commission and the applicant discussed the sizes of the Lennox and Superior B-vents. Ms. Hardy stated that they would be using the Lennox B-vent. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve with conditions and Commissioner Levin made the second and the vote was called. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to using the Lennox specifications painted to match roof tile; at 1’ height. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Touschner abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 8 of 29 4. CASE NO: SA 10-65 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SURESH SHAH, 40-530 Morningstar Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument signs; Golden Star Plaza. LOCATION: 74-350 Alessandro ZONE: R-3(4) Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting two monument signs located on Alessandro Drive. Both signs are located on private property and are placed on the east and west side of the single driveway on Alessandro Drive. The signs are placed within an existing planter area that is currently filled with dirt. Any prior landscaping was removed before the signs were installed. The signage plan illustrates that the sign will be redesigned to a maximum of 6’ high with the name “Golden Star Plaza” located at the top of the signs. The signs are 5’-10” long and 1’-6” wide. The sign located on the east side of the driveway is designed with four tenant panels, and the sign on the west side is designed with two tenant panels. The signs are constructed out of aluminum, painted to match the existing buildings. The modified signs provide for non-illuminated tenant panels with a faux stone finish design with routed out push through letters; only the letters will illuminate from the signage. Section 25.68.070, Permanent Signs states that one monument sign per frontage is allowed for properties less than five acres. The property is a corner lot with two frontages. The applicant installed two signs on Alessandro Drive and the ordinance would allow the applicant to request one sign on Alessandro Drive and one on Santa Ynez Avenue; however, the applicant is requesting two signs on one frontage. The ordinance does not allow for two signs on one frontage and does not allow for any exceptions for such a request. Staff has told the applicant that these signs do not comply with certain signage requirements and that the design does not visually enhance the overall appearance of the property. The applicant is requesting that the Commission approve the signage based on the proposed modifications. Staff recommends that the applicant be allowed one of two signs, and that one of the tenant panels be ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 9 of 29 removed to adequately lower the sign to 6’. The changes to the illumination for routed-out push-through letters are supported by staff. Mr. Suresh Shah, property owner stated that the reason he put in two signs was because he has two buildings. He explained that this is not a main street like Highway 111 or Fred Waring. Alessandro is a small street, mainly residential and some office professional. He stated that his tenants need exposure and their business depends on the signs. He said that he couldn’t get tenants unless they had signs because they are on the back street and no one knows where they are located. He is willing to modify the signs to make it beautiful and will show the names only. Commissioner Touschner asked how many tenants he had. Mr. Shah indicated two in Building A and seven in Building B. The tenants don’t want to come in unless they have sign exposure that is why he did it without permits. The City doesn’t give him money for anything, he is losing money and we all know how the rental market is. That is why the reason he put in the signs. Now he will modify them according to the code. Commissioner Levin asked what kind of signage Mr. Shah has currently. Mr. Bagato explained that most of the tenants have their names on the signage and said that the sign code is written in a way to provide some advertising; however, the intent of a monument sign is not to have every tenant visible from the right-of-way because it is too cluttered. Typically the rule of thumb is to have three on smaller sites and more than three on larger sites if they are architecturally appealing to the site, but the ordinance states one per sign. Mr. Shah referred to the two signs at the Morningstar Plaza. Mr. Bagato stated that one is on Fred Waring and the other one is technically on the corner. Commissioner Touschner asked if the applicant would be allowed to have two signs. Mr. Bagato answered yes, one on Santa Ynez and one on Alessandro. Commissioner Gregory asked if he placed it on the other street how far back from the corner would it have to be. Mr. Bagato said it would have to be outside the right-of-way 18’ on Alessandro and 12’ from the curb on Santa Ynez. Mr. Shah didn’t think there should be a sign on Santa Ynez because it was a residential street with no other buildings there. Commissioner Touschner wondered why it had to be two signs, why not combine them all and have one sign. Mr. Shah said because there can only ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 10 of 29 be three tenants on each sign. Commissioner Touschner suggested doing a split sign; three on one side and three on the other. Commissioner Lambell suggested that the owner refer to his location by name. If a tenant is renting a space they will tell people they are located in the Golden Star Plaza and inside the driveway there could be a directory with all the names and suite numbers. Mr. Shah said that this is a small street and people drive fast past the buildings and unless they see the tenants they won’t stop. These signs are not an eye sore, they are good looking and he needs two because he has two buildings. Commissioner Vuksic stated he can have two signs, it’s just a matter of where you put them so they don’t look cluttered; right now they look cluttered. Commissioner Vuksic reminded the Commission that when something like this is done without a permit would we have approved this if it came in originally before it was built. He stated he would not have approved the signs because aesthetically they look like they are off the shelf and not a lot to them. He also stated that having the signs placed in the planters is too crowded and looks stuffed. Mr. Shah stated that the signs were there before in the same planters. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the previous signs were turned the other way and the way they are turned now and takes up the whole width of the planter. Commissioner Gregory understands that every building owner wants the maximum signage and our standard response is one monument sign per side no matter how many buildings there are, with no more than three names. He thought it would be okay if the applicant would like to have a sign around the corner because he has two units. He can keep both signs as long as they conform size wise and there aren’t more than three names per sign. Commissioner Touschner said that the background of the signs didn’t match the building. Mr. Shah stated that is what the city wanted and Mr. Bagato stated that staff wouldn’t have approved white light up panels. Commissioner Touschner also thought that the signs looked stuffed into the planters and said they needed to be parallel to the street with landscape around the sign. Commissioner Gregory made a motion to approve with conditions and Commissioner Touschner made the second. Commissioner Touschner discussed the three colors on the buildings and suggested the lighter color be used for the sign so the sign would pop. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 11 of 29 Commissioner Gregory amended the motion and Commissioner Touschner agreed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he still had an issue with it on the aesthetics and thought the signs were a little too plain. Commissioner Stendell stated that it is not a difficult building to find and thought they didn’t need to list the tenants on the sign because the tenants have a hanging sign in front of their storefront. He supports the motion, but thought the Commission should look at the monument sign verbiage so they have a lot more control over it in the future. A monument is a monument; it designates a building. Commissioner Gregory said he feels the same way; unfortunately the reality is that a lot of people won’t take space in a building if they don’t have some signage out in front. Over the years we have recognized that problem and we have come up with the maximum number of signs that could be a part of the signage. Commissioner Touschner asked if there was a line of sight issue with these signs. Mr. Bagato said that they are 8’ back and the traffic engineer indicated there wasn’t a line of sight issue. Commissioner Stendell reminded the Commission that the motion calls for the signs to run parallel to the building. Commissioner Gregory called for the vote. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant approval subject to: 1) one sign allowed on Alessandro parallel to the face of the building with no more than three tenants listed or increase planter to leave sign perpendicular to the street; 2) one sign allowed on Santa Ynez parallel to Alessandro with no more than three names listed or increase planter to leave sign perpendicular to the street; 3) both signs to match each other; 4) the color of signs to match the lighter color of the building with opaque panels; 5) both signs no taller than 6’; and 6) landscape plan to be submitted to Landscape Specialist for review and approval. Motion carried 5-1-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic voting NO and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. The following was added after the vote was called. Mr. Shah referred to the signs being parallel to the face of the building and stated that he has to keep them facing east and west. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn’t think that would be a problem if he keeps the signs smaller. The problem right now is that the signs were not originally designed for the planters and ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 12 of 29 when they were turned they became too large for that space. If the sign was smaller, it might be something this Commission could look at and approve. Mr. Shah said no it was fine with a planter and he could put landscaping around both sides, however, it has to be 90 degrees to the building so it can be seen from the west and the east side. Commissioner Touschner stated that it was too tight for the planter and said he has two choices; the planter either has to get bigger…she was interrupted by Mr. Shah stating that he will make the planter bigger. Commissioner Gregory stated that since this was already voted on this is something that can be determined by staff. 5. CASE NO: MISC 10-220 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ARMANDO’S MEXICAN BAR AND GRILL, Armando Alvarez, 73-260 El Paseo, Suite 1A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new awning to recover existing awning: Armando’s. LOCATION: 73-260 El Paseo Suites 1A & 1B ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. Armando’s Mexican Grill and Bar currently has an awning that wraps around the front façade of the building. The applicant is seeking to replace the awning fabric with a burgundy color. The awning framework will remain the same and no signage is proposed as a part of this awning. The awning will be completely burgundy in color following the existing shape and framework currently on-site. Staff recommends approval to replace the dilapidated awning with a new fabric in a burgundy color as proposed. The Commission reviewed and discussed the renderings. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 13 of 29 6. CASE NO: SA 10-66 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SURESH SHAH, 40-530 Morningstar Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new monument sign; Palm Desert Design Center. LOCATION: 41-900 Corporate Way ZONE: S-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of three monument signs. All signs are located on private property; outside the public right-of- way. The signs are placed within an existing planter area on both streets surrounding the property. One sign is located on Corporate Way, one on 42nd Avenue and one wraps the corner of Corporate Way and 42nd Avenue. The signage plan illustrates that the two tenant panel signs will be redesigned to a maximum of 6’ high with the name “Palm Desert Design Center” located at the top. Both signs currently have four tenant panels on them. The third sign is a shorter sign that wraps the corner of the street with only the “Palm Desert Design Center” name on it. All signs are constructed out of aluminum, painted beige with emerald green graphics. The modified signs are designed as non-illuminated tenant panels with emerald green panels so that only the tenant names illuminate through the panel; the corner sign is non-illuminated. Staff has told the applicant that these signs do not comply with certain signage requirements. The applicant is requesting the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) to approve the signage based on the proposed modifications. Staff recommends that the applicant remove the corner sign and that the Commission approve the modified tenant panel signs at 6’ high with only three tenant panel signs. Mr. Suresh Shah, applicant feels that both signs meet the code and are set back far enough from the street so they don’t obstruct the view. He stated the signs look good and feels that the sign on the corner is not a sign because it is only 2’ high and only identifies the name of the center. He put the sign on the corner so people traveling down the west side can see the name of the center. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if it would be possible to change the corner sign to a directional sign because he cannot have ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 14 of 29 three monument signs. He pointed out that they were low key and tasteful, but it’s still another monument sign. The Commission and the applicant discussed the location of the signs and how the public would gain access to the center. Mr. Shah stated that the signs are not an eye sore and the city shouldn’t make a big deal about it. Commissioner Levin said that the applicant put these signs up without a permit and it violates the ordinance. Mr. Shah informed the Commission that they don’t understand the leasing part. He explained that one of his tenants moved out because there was no signage. He told the Commission that he was really angry and said they make the rules and regulations, but they don’t understand how hard it is to lease an office building in this town. Half the buildings are empty and the owners are suffering and are gong through distress. The Commission should encourage people to put more signs out to get the tenants in instead of putting hurdles and roadblocks every where they turn. Commissioner Gregory said that it may seem that way, but this Commission doesn’t make the rules. This Commission tries to enforce them because if everyone did everything they wanted it would be a cacophony of signage. He asked staff if temporary signage would be allowed like banners for a 30-day period. Mr. Bagato said yes. Commissioner Gregory reviewed the redesigned signs and thought they didn’t look too bad. He stated that the name of the center should be larger, but there is a maximum of tenants indicated per sign. There are ways to make this work and still conform to the ordinance. He also suggested that they keep the sign on the corner and eliminate one of the free standing monument signs. Commissioner Lambell suggested they could change the plantings and make it more desertscape. Commissioner Gregory informed the applicant that the signs are not intended to go into turf areas because they will be continually sprayed with water. Commissioner Vuksic stated that these signs are similar to Mr. Shah’s other business plaza, but these have a little more to them; he felt they will work and are nice looking. He wasn’t quite sure but he thought the color on the signs looked different than the color on the building. Mr. Shah informed him that the color is the same. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned it because he wants the signs to relate to the building. Mr. Shah said they changed the color of the building without permits. Commissioner Vuksic said that the monument signs look good and the corner looks tasteful, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 15 of 29 unfortunately it would set a precedent that this Commission would have a hard time going back on. Mr. Shah stated that he could put landscaping around it. Commissioner Vuksic said it’s about precedence. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the monument signs as presented, but not the corner sign. Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Lambell asked if it would be appropriate to eliminate the turf around the monument to protect it from overspray. Mr. Swartz stated that a landscape plan would have to be reviewed by the Landscape Specialist. Commissioner Vuksic amended his motion and Commissioner Levin agreed. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval of monument sign as presented subject to: 1) eliminating turf around signage to protect signage from overspray; 2) removing the corner monument sign; and 3) landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 7. CASE NO: CUP 10-169 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Canyon, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to increase the height of an existing monopalm by 10’. LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74 ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The proposed 65’ high monopalm is camouflaged by four existing 25’ to 50’ high palm trees. The applicant is requesting removal of the existing antennas at 65’ and extending the monopalm 10’ to a total height of 75’. The antennas would be concealed in a growth ball and reinstalled at new height. The Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 Commercial Communication Tower Regulations states the max height for wireless towers is 75’. The proposed 8’ block wall enclosure for the back-up generator would be directly in front of the monopalm facing Highway 74. The enclosure is 10’-8” x 16’-8”. In order to accommodate the block wall enclosure some existing ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 16 of 29 landscaping would have to be removed and replaced. The landscape plans have been preliminary approved by the Landscape Specialist. This project will require the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has determined that the 10’ height increase and block wall enclosure will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has also determined that there are enough palm trees in this area. Staff is concerned that another carrier will want to co-locate and is recommending that a condition is placed on the approval so that no co-location will take place on this monopalm. Mr. Swartz said that the height increase meets all development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Gregory requested that the diameter of the taller monopalm be no wider than the current diameter of the 65’ tree. Mr. Swartz stated that it would not be any wider, just taller. Commissioner Touschner asked if it would be the same type. Mr. Swartz answered yes and said that the Commission could request that additional fronds be added to help screen it even more. Mr. Eric Meurs, Verizon Wireless stated that it’s been more than five years since they installed the existing monopalm and technology continues to evolve and the fronds and trees have gotten better. He indicated that he will be removing the existing monopalm and replacing it with a new one. Commissioner Stendell asked how tall the four palm trees were that surrounded the monopalm and Mr. Swartz stated that they were 35’ and 55’. He felt that the new monopalm would stick out and was concerned with the height increase. Mr. Meurs stated that the other monopoles in that area are already at 75’. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there were so many trees around there that he didn’t think it would make a difference and the other trees will grow that tall. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Vuskic, to grant approval subject to: 1) no co-location; and 2) landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the landscape specialist. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Lambell and Levin abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 17 of 29 8. CASE NO: MISC/SA 10-219 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GALLERIA LLC, Alibaba Farzaneh, 127 Via Santo Tomas, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of courtyard renovations and a comprehensive sign program: The Galleria Building. LOCATION: 73-111 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of exterior renovations to the east courtyard and a comprehensive sign program for the Galleria Building. The improvements to the east courtyard will provide new outdoor seating for two restaurants with new railings, ceramic pots for outdoor plants, a fountain for Bellini Restaurant, and a granite fire pit at the new Venue Sushi Bar Restaurant. Other improvements include new travertine stone veneer on existing columns, an LCD display screen, and a misting system on the existing awnings at the sushi restaurant. Mr. Bagato stated that the retail center currently has several independent freestanding signs located on the property, including a yellow freestanding awning for Bellini Restaurant. The applicant is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign program for two new freestanding pole signs with two tenants on each pole, and a new monument sign replacing the existing one located in the existing planter on Ocotillo Drive. Staff believes that the two freestanding pole signs will improve the signage presentation for this mixed use center. In addition, these pole signs have been used at The Gardens on El Paseo, making them consistent with the street presence along El Paseo. As proposed, the signs are located within the public right-of-way and will need to be moved back 1’-4” to be located on private property. The monument sign on Ocotillo complies with all the development standards of the zone and can be approved as part of the comprehensive sign program. Staff believes that both the exterior renovations and the new comprehensive sign program will enhance the property and will provide a better street presence for El Paseo. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 18 of 29 Mr. Alibaba Farzaneh, applicant stated that he would welcome any comments from the Commission. Commissioner Stendell asked if they were changing out their brick pavers and Mr. Farzaneh said the pavers were remaining; however, they may trench 4’ x 6” to put in a gas line for the fire pit. Commissioner Touschner suggested that he clean up the bricks in the walk way. She stated that this proposal looks lovely. She loved the signs and said it is much nicer than what was there now. Mr. Farzaneh stated that he would acid wash the brick walk way. Commissioner Touschner discussed landscaping and asked what would be required because there were a lot of flowers shown and not what she would call desert. Mr. Farzaneh stated that he would maintain the flower beds and pots and match what was in the existing planters. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Stendell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to the freestanding pole signs to be located at least 10’ from the curb so that they are not within the public right-of-way. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 9. CASE NO: MISC 10-161 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LITTLE ARCHITECTS, 1901 Newport Blvd #300, Mesa, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront design changes; Lucky Brand Jeans LOCATION: 73425 El Paseo #112 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that Lucky Brand Jeans came before the Commission previously with other storefronts for the El Paseo Village and presented the previous approval to the Commission for their review. Lucky Brand Jeans is in the process of changing their branding and this is what they are now proposing for their new facade. The color is the same as the previous color but they are removing the blue band on the top, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 19 of 29 changing their letters from white to the Lucky Brand blue, dropping their blue jeans logo and going with an off white finish with blue awnings. There is only one other building that has a lot of white and that is Janie and Jack, which is not right next door to Lucky’s so it shouldn’t be too bad with the overall shell of the building being more desert scheme. He recommended approval. Commissioner Touschner stated that she liked the previous frame around the windows that was darker and thought it gave it a punch but felt there will be a lot of color when there is something in the windows. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC, Matt Joblon, 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 59 multi-family residential units and 92 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated there has been a lot of discussions and today they will be discussing the new changes. He informed the public that this Commission does not address traffic, noise, lighting and environmental, which will be discussed at the Planning Commission. Mr. Matt Joblon, developer stated that they have gone through four major concessions, and on this particular revision they have lost another 7,000 square feet for a total loss of 37,000 square feet off the actual mass above the grade. This one stung the most because it was the most valuable to the whole project. They have ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 20 of 29 gone from 92 rooms down to 90 rooms and lost 7,000 square feet. Rosewood is acquiring a certain amount of hotel piece for them to commit to the project so they had to go back and re-plan, re-layout all the rooms and lower the suite count significantly by 20% to make sure they hit the room count. Mr. Joblon stated again that they have made four significant compromises from the beginning and they have come to a point where they have to draw the line in order to make sure they can fulfill their promise of building a five-star hotel. Today they are asking for a decision and hopefully over the past couple of months that they have been going through this, the Commission has seen compromises in response to the community to try and create something that will fit into the neighborhood. He believes that all of the changes they have made from an architectural standpoint have made it a better project. Mr. Joblon went through all the changes that have occurred. They took off the fourth floor along Highway 74 in its entirety to cut it down to the height limit. In the second revision they pushed the fourth story back 45’ off Highway 74. With the most recent revision they cut the entire half off the fourth story along Imago Gallery and the only fourth story on the most northern wing that abuts Imago Gallery is setback 45’. On the Imago Gallery side they also stepped back the building in its entirety on every single level. On the front façade they created two big receptors where you can view the courtyard to try to create a real breakup in the façade. They spent a lot of time and money to try and come up with better solutions that made this a better project. Mr. Joblon said that the one thing they have heard over and over again is that the height should be from the middle of each lot even though this is one property. They have merely shifted the impact of their building height away from the adjacent property from the north that is commercial and the south that is residential. He feels that by adhering to the code on both sides of the property it was better to have that mass towards the commercial part of El Paseo than the actual neighborhood. They looked at that from the very beginning and decided that this would be less of an impact and more appropriate for this site. In reference to the massing along Highway 74, they addressed that head on in one of their first revisions by taking off the entire fourth floor along Highway 74 and stepping it back at least 45’, and in some instances not having a fourth floor on the middle wing. He said that traffic and noise will be addressed in ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 21 of 29 the Mitigated Negative Declaration and will be addressed in other forums. They want to move forward from this meeting and are hoping that everyone has seen the compromises they have made and are focused on the design today and the positive this brings. Mr. Joblon stated that it is not just about the architecture. It’s two million dollars a year direct revenue to the city, it is 250 to 300 permanent jobs, it’s 150 non-permanent construction jobs, it’s all the trades that get work, all the local subs, and all the additional pedestrian traffic on El Paseo. This will increase revenue sales, sales tax revenue, and increase property values all around. He concluded by saying that they have done a great job of listening to their neighbors to come up with a solution that will work. Commissioner Gregory suggested dropping the north end of the building which he thought wouldn’t reduce the four stories, splitting the middle and dropping the north end so that it comes closer to the spirit of the 35’ maximum height. Mr. Joblon stated that all the trucks go underground and they have to maintain a 14’ height limit and above that there isn’t an ounce of square footage that is not being fully utilized. Commissioner Gregory stated that he is looking at all the ways to make this more palatable. He stated that they are not that far off from having a building that could be approvable, but they are still fighting the maximum height problem. Mr. Joblon referred to one of the renderings and stated that the impact has been dramatically reduced from El Paseo and Highway 74 and said that the third floor at the 49’ line is actually to code. He thought they honored the code because if you try doing it lot by lot you end up with much more of a problem in a residential area; which is a lot less palatable for a lot more people. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had a point, and said that this is such a small space and so close to adjoining properties as opposed to say the mall that is greatly setback as are all the other tall buildings that exist in the desert. Mr. Bagato stated that when they initially came in staff looked at stepping parcels but then when we go from one condominium to the next it would be much more intrusive on the south side of the project. Commissioner Touschner discussed how the building wraps around the corner and how the fourth floor steps back 15’ from Imago. She felt that was a big piece to start stepping back. She applauds them for doing that because it helps give it a little more space between the buildings. She asked if there was any opportunity to give that a little more relief. Mr. Joblon stated that they have looked at that in ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 22 of 29 every way possible, but they started losing more rooms. He also stated that from an architectural and design standpoint the more setbacks they have you are dealing with the balcony window and the shutter façade design which breaks up the building and the corner. He also stated that there is a tremendous amount of landscape that will soften that corner all the way down. He understands that they shouldn’t focus on the landscape, but it does play a role on the visual impact. Commissioner Stendell asked if the fourth story wasn’t there would they be in compliance and Mr. Joblon answered yes they would be. Commissioner Stendell asked what the setback was on Highway 74 and Mr. Bagato said it was 50’ total and that is what the applicant is proposing. Commissioner Stendell asked if there was something different with the setback when Imago was built. Mr. Bagato stated that Imago’s setback was based on 32’ from the frontage road. When this project came in they talked to Public Works because they wanted to encompass and take over the frontage road. One of the reason they entertained that was because they talked to another developer, Fred Fern who also has a plan to encompass the frontage road. There is now intent from the City and other commercial builders to eliminate the frontage road. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that it was important that everyone understood where Imago was located and pointed it out on the rendering. Mr. Joblon feels that the one person who will benefit the most in the whole city will be the Imago Gallery. That is because you have a high end hotel filled with qualified guests who would otherwise not be here who will be walking by the gallery to get to El Paseo. This will be a boon to his business. Commissioner Touschner asked what will happen if the frontage road goes away farther down closer to St. John’s and who will be taking care of that to make sure that it will look nice and be a good connection between the two. Mr. Bagato stated that Public Works is looking at that and would entertain that to the City Council to see if they want to ban the frontage road. It is something staff would have to look at and develop further. Mr. Joblon stated that the conversation he had with Mr. Fern was that he was going to do retail and a restaurant there. Mr. Fern would bring his side up, the city would bring their side up and Mr. David Austin, owner of Imago Gallery would create a sculpture garden to bring the people in and the sidewalk would continue straight. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 23 of 29 Commissioner Touschner stated that she knows in some ways this has been a painful process for everybody, but out of this is a much nicer building than when first proposed. Not that the other wasn’t nice architecture, it just wasn’t appropriate for this spot and now it is much more community based. It is unfortunate that there is a height piece that absolutely doesn’t fit but that is not for this Commission to solve; it is for the Planning Commission to solve. She stated that she can support this as a good piece of architecture that will be a part of our community and made a motion to approve. Commissioner Vuksic reminded her that the public has a chance to speak before making a motion. Mr. Bagato addressed the public and asked them to address the new architectural changes only. Mr. Mark Homme, attorney for Imago Gallery stated that the developer mentioned all the benefits to the city and to the neighbors, but didn’t talk about the architecture. He totally disagrees with staff about the averaging on the lot. The City’s requirement for architecture is vague and there should have been a standard and there isn’t. He thinks where there is a problem for Imago is the frontage road in front of the gallery. The City wanted the frontage road there and they set back Imago 35’. Now this project comes in and the city abandons the frontage road, pulling this building up closer to the street. The problem is 49’, which doesn’t even conform to the architectural requirement at all. His client’s problem is that when you are driving south on Highway 74, his building is totally hidden with this massive building and landscaping that will hide it even further. According to his client, the developer made a comment that when they go into a project they ask for twice as much as they think they can get so then they compromise by bringing it down. Mr. Joblon spoke up and said that is not true. Mr. Homme said that it might not be true, but it is funny that after the four or five times we now have a project that the Commission says looks better. It is too bad that it didn’t come in this way the first time. Architecturally it is better, but it isn’t the same standards you have forced other people to have. The other problem is that the Imago is a contemporary block style building, an art building with a lot of different values. Artistically the Imago is a piece of art, but this proposed building is an institutional type building. There is nothing in Palm Desert within three miles except the mall that approaches this architecturally. He asked what is going to happen to the frontage road in front of his client’s building, who will pay for that and who will put the sculpture garden out ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 24 of 29 there. He said not to assume that his client wants to spend a lot of money doing that. This building does not conform to the architectural standards that the city needs and even though it is a nice project, it just doesn’t belong where it is proposed. Mr. Bob Pippin stated that he is in support of the project. His office is in the Galleria and has been there for about six years. He lives up Highway 74 and has been driving by that piece of property since it has been vacant. His business is buying distressed properties and started looking at that vacant lot as an opportunity. He found out that it wasn’t a distressed piece of property and that something was being done with it. Mr. Joblon probably looked at it and thought what a spectacular project for that area and for this city. This is a 125 million dollar project and Rosewood will come here but if you make it too difficult for them they will go somewhere else. He said he would like to see the project. He asked will he make money out of this project. No, but he can go there. He asked is it an improvement to the city, absolutely. About 30 years ago the center of this valley was Palm Springs not Palm Desert and he said that what happened in Palm Springs was the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Committee got too difficult to deal with and Mr. Hahn came down to Palm Desert and made this area. This is a great project and will be the best looking building in this town and the Commission would be foolish to drive it to another town. Ms. Heidi Hanskin – Sandpiper. She asked Mr. Joblon if he was absolutely certain that Rosewood will be handling this property and Mr. Joblon stated that was correct. She asked if there would be a possibly of it going bankrupt and becoming another Ritz Carlton. Mr. Joblon stated that there is a possibility for anything, but said that they don’t take certain development risks; they raise all the money first before getting started. They already have bonding, insurance, and guaranteed national contracts. He said that when you talk about commitment to the community this is serious, so you can bet there is no way they will take a risk with that amount of money. Mr. Alibaba Farzaneh, business owner stated that in 1982 Radisson hotel approached the city to build a 200 room hotel and since that time, hotels have come and gone. He thinks this is a good idea to let this developer do the hotel. Modify anyway you need to, but the concept of this hotel is very suitable on Highway 74. He hopes that the Commission approves it. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 25 of 29 Ms. Jan Coffyn – Sandpiper. She stated that she is having a hard time with the developer saying that he has made concessions. She said that he may be accommodating what the Commission has asked for, but he is making it sound like he had to cut off his arm in order to make the residents happy. She knows he had to have researched this site in order to know what the rules were for the city with the 35’ height limits. She is not enamored with the Rosewood name and would hate to see this committee and the city give up so much to bring in the Rosewood name. She doesn’t care about Rosewood; she cares about her town and her neighbors. She also said that the developer talked to residents on Ocotillo and they were applauding this, but she wondered if he talked to the owners. She said that if she were an owner there, she would not want a structure across the street that was five times the height of her house. Her view of the mountains has been a joy and a blessing for all these years and knows it wasn’t anything she was entitled to because it was a vacant lot. She could go with 35’ to 45’, but not 60’. She can’t imagine that the owners would applaud that type of thing. So many people have said you have 72 keys to make it a success but if you cannot bring it down to fit the regulations of the city, then maybe you need to find a smaller investor or down scale your desires. All these things are too huge to put on this space. Each lot is a separate parcel, and the north end has to come down, it is too massive. Commissioner Lambell reminded the public that they are here to discuss the new architectural changes only. Mr. Bob Roarke - 45875 Ocotillo. He stated there is a lot of people that want to break the tyranny and status quo that we have in this community that makes it so difficult to bring worldwide perfection into our community. It reminds him of when the city wanted a new college for the east end of the valley and needed a way for the people to get to that college quickly. So a four lane highway was created to give people access. He said that Palm Desert will face the same kind of issues in the future because what is right now is not what the voters are going to settle on forever. The voters will want more perfection coming into the city and will want the finest standards that are available in the world, and in order to make that happen we’re going to have to break the status quo to reach for the perfection that is there. We did it and got a college, we did it and got a roadway and we can do it here too because these men are bringing you absolute perfection in terms of the appearance of this ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 26 of 29 building and anyone from any other community would be thrilled to have this there. Mr. Robert Clark - Sandpiper. He asked if the plan as presented with the 49’ at the north end requires a variance for the height restriction. Mr. Bagato stated that it doesn’t require a variance, the ordinance has an exception process written in the district and that is what they are requesting. Basically the precise plan will have a development agreement and can be approved. Ms. Tess Miller – Sandpiper. She appreciates the concessions the developer has made and feels that a lot of the residents will also have to make some concessions. She asked that before this is approved they put up markings at the height, length, elevations and interior so everyone will have time to sit and look at the mass and make a decision on whether this is something we can live with as property owners and residents of the city or is it totally something outside the scope of what we are willing to accept. Commissioner Gregory closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gregory said that the Commission’s major charge is looking at design; such as height limits, setbacks, etc., the overall picture of what the project is all about and how it fits within its location. He thought that looking at the style and architecture of this proposed development should be their major focus at this time. The developer has made a lot of changes in the course of five presentations and he feels there are still some compromises that have to be made, but some of those decisions will be addressed by a different body. He thought the suggestion of story poles was a very good suggestion. Again he stated that the ARCs charge is to look at the architectural style and how it relates to the neighbors. The developer has made a very serious effort at bringing down the mass and scale of the building with respect to its impact on the neighbors, but it is not perfect. He stated that most of his concerns have been addressed and he would support it. He would like to see this project go on to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it has to do with determining if a project is in harmony with the neighborhood, which normally you don’t seem to have to look at that hard, but in this case it is very appropriate. Mr. Pippen’s comments were very good, but we have to be careful that we don’t make things too difficult for quality developers. He said that as much as he likes the architecture he is ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 27 of 29 concerned of it meeting the spirit of the ordinance. He feels the averaging ordinance wasn’t written for such a long piece of property so that is a real problem. He mentioned precedence and asked what will this do in the future when you get similar types of masses proposed on sites this close to a street. He is concerned with how it will appear as you go up the hill and thought its location makes this too high. For this to be approvable it has to observe the average height limit in steps as it goes down the hill. Stepping it would start to break down the mass of the long parapet. If this is approved, we need to add a condition that the project be reviewed at the design development stage because the detailing of that transparent wall as we have come to think of it is going to be critically important to pull this thing off. Commissioner Levin understood what was said, but on the other hand he thought the point was well made that if you start looking at the 35’ on an individual basis rather than the entire project, you take the south end of the project and it would be well within the standards for 35’. Based on the site that the developer has had to work with and what they have presented they have given the best possible solution and he applauds their efforts from when this was first submitted. The way it is presented now he can support it. Commissioner Touschner stated that it has a much better sense of scale and massing with architectural components that work well with our community. One individual who spoke earlier said that it didn’t fit architecturally into our community, but she thought it did. When you look at the pieces and parts of the project, they do match our community. Is it more than most of the other buildings within our community? Yes, but it is a sign of the times and it is a bigger project. She said that we have evolved and decisions that were made ten years ago are going to change. She does feel their pain about the Imago Gallery and thought that it was a lovely building and hopes that this building will be an extension of that block and that the Imago will now share its environment with other buildings; buildings that will all enhance each other and start to give the fabric of a changing community. She also hopes that it will be supported by that walkway. She is hopeful that between the developer and the city they will take care of the frontage road. There are still some issues with the height, but the architectural components is something that she can support and feels that it is something good for the community. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 28 of 29 Commissioner Stendell tends to agree with both sides and he feels that he can support this project in a manner in which it has been presented. He stated that Imago’s frontage road has been here for the 26 plus years he’s been here and didn’t know why. In some areas they have been massaged and some areas they have tried to eliminate them. He thought that if done properly the frontage road from this project all the way down to El Paseo will be handled very well and with the contributions coming from Churchill Management, Fred Fern’s side with the hotel will probably absorb whatever has to be done to the face of Imago. This is an infill project and surrounded by numerous pieces of projects zoned in different venues and it’s a difficult one to try to shoehorn in. He agrees that the developer and his crew have done a very good job of listening to what has been discussed. From the height standpoint he still has the same feeling, but he knows that it’s probably time to move it on. Architecturally he likes it and thinks that it fits. El Paseo is a wonderful menagerie of different architecture and styles. He stated that he would support it and would like to move it forward. He feels that the concessions that have been made are challenging, but they can work through them. Commissioner Lambell remembers when there was an old fashioned U-shaped hotel on this property and remembers when it was torn down, yet it has always stayed in everyone’s mind as a commercial strip of land; it was never designated as residential. She also agrees that we have to break the tyranny of the status quo but it has to happen or we don’t continue to grow or mature; not only as a group, but as an organization, a commission and certainly as a city. She is behind this project and feels that the developer has done what he has needed to do to get it to this point and said that the next round will be much more difficult. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve and Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Vuksic made the suggestion that this be approved with the condition that it be brought back in the design development stage. Commissioners Touschner and Levin both agreed and the motion was amended. Commissioner Levin asked if there were other elements that would be coming back to this Commission. Mr. Bagato stated that whatever the Planning Commission and City Council approves the ARC will see the plans at the construction level when they are ready for plan check. Commissioner Levin asked about signage and Mr. Bagato said it will be reviewed by the ARC when it comes back. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 29 of 29 Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further questions or comments, none were noted and he called for the vote. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant preliminary approval subject to Architectural Review Commission reviewing and approving the design development plans. Motion carried 5-1-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic voting NO and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None V. COMMENTS Mr. Jim Cross, Best Signs addressed the Commission regarding signage in Palm Desert. He asked that the Commission hold their industry to the highest standard possible. He has come to know that in the City of Palm Desert, as well as many of the other cities, to present the Commission with tasteful designs and to make sure they get permits. It was difficult for him to sit here and listen to Mr. Shah because the reason those signs where not represented by Best Signs was because his company refused to do them without permits. This is not the only city that Mr. Shah’s signs were installed without permits. For Mr. Shah to walk away after clearly violating the ordinance and practically being rewarded for his efforts was somewhat disappointing. He once again asked the Commission to continue to hold the sign industry to the highest standard. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Stendell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER