Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-23 � ''rr/ �--�-� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 5 1 Chris Van Vliet X 6 John Vuksic X 6 Karel Lambell X 6 Pam Touschner X 5 1 Allan Levin X 6 Ken Stendell X 6 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development 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 Aaron Kulp, Associate Engineer Byrce White, Project Administrator Martin Alvarez, Redevelopment Manager Heather Buck, Project Coordinator Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None IV. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION �.�r° � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO: SA 10-103 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO VILLAGE / DAVIS STREET LAND CO., 622 Davis Street, Suite 200, Evanston, IL, 60201. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of sign program; EI Paseo Village. LOCATION: 73-405, 73-425 and 73-445 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Tony Bagato explained that the request was for approval of the final design criteria for the EI Paseo Village signage program. He said the new signage ordinance requires any multi-tenant building with three or more storefronts to have a signage program before individual signs for tenants could be approved. He indicated that new signage criteria, more of a design spec, was just distributed to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). He stated that staff had no trouble with the design proposal or criteria. His only comment on the program related to the elevations. Mr. Bagato was concerned with the portions of the building facing the parking lot, as well as the residential area. He explained that when they went through the approval process, and at the existing Gardens, they tried to avoid illuminated signs in the back facing residential areas.. The proposal didn't really call it out any differently from the front, which allows illuminated signs, so he would prefer if they were going to have signage on the back that it be non-illuminated, which he had already expressed to the applicant and their representative that if they have signage on the back, he would prefer non-illuminated. MR. BOB FLIDAY, General Manager of The Gardens, said they weren't really looking to put signs on the back of the building. They do have one new configuration where just they leased a large space on the front, which was 5,600 feet, so they only have one space over there now that wasn't leased. Unfortunately, it was behind Janie and Jack and it was on the paseo, so the only storefront they have is on the back. They would like that addressed in some way so that they could have adequate signage. He Page 2 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL R1r�'IEW COMMISSION 'W✓ MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 understood Mr. Bagato's comment and they certainly didn't want to cause any issues with the residential on that back, but he didn't think itluminated signage would even show because he believed they were going to have covers over the parking there that would probably block it anyway. He didn't think they would see it. He thought Mr. Vuksic could comment on that; he didn't know if the shade structures were higher than where the signs would go anyway. Commissioner Levin asked if they only had access from the rear and no EI Paseo access. Mr. Fliday concurred that they only have access from the rear. Mr. Fliday distributed typical storefront signage. He said the actual space he was talking about was #114. He pointed out the location of Janie and Jack and the paseo. He stated that the only access they will have is the corner and that would be their storefront. They would not have access on EI Paseo. Commissioner Levin asked if they were allowed to have signage on the EI Paseo side if they didn't have frontage on the EI Paseo side. It could be confusing because they would see the sign and there would be no door. Mr. Bagato said they could do a pedestrian-oriented sign like maybe a blade sign, but they weren't going to get their names like Janie and Jack or Banana Republic would. But they could get some kind of directional sign. Those were typically non-illuminated as well. On sheet A04.12, Commissioner Touschner, noted it looked like they would have signage off of the paseo. Mr. Bagato said they would have signage inside the paseo as well and asked if that was correct. Mr. Fliday clarified that he didn't think they intended to have signage inside the paseo; not to his knowledge. Mr. Bagato thought a couple of exhibits showed it inside as well. But typically they were allowed one sign per frontage, so if they had a rear exposure and side exposure, they could have more than one based on the sign code. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, the project representative, said that judging by the section, looking across at the residential area on the right is up a few feet, he could see that, but he knew the bulkhead for the landlord was pretty big in the area above the tenant space and the tenant signs were only in the tenant space. So just eyeballing it, it Page 3 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION ``�''' � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 looked like a zero line from a person standing at the residential area and cleared that parking canopy which goes all the way across the site, looks like they would be well within the landlord area of the building and not the tenant area. That's how it looked. He was saying that the parking canopy would block the view of the sign. _ ' Commissioner Touschner asked about the height of the parking canopies. Mr. Vuksic said a good 12 feet. Commissioner Touschner said the top of the sign was no taller than 14'6". Mr. Vuksic concurred, and then the parking canopy was at least a bay of parking away, so the line-of-sight was continuing up. In addition, Mr. Fliday said that surrounding the entire center there is a buffer zone of landscaping of trees in the back, so he didn't think they would ever see it. Commissioner Touschner thought it would be fine. She asked if this was the one place where maybe the sign comes back understanding the height against the light of the parking. Mr. Bagato said it wasn't called out, but should be at least reverse channel. That would still give some illumination, but would be more elegant in the back. Commissioner Levin asked if they could condition that any other illuminated signs need to come back and leave it open that way if they don't want to illuminate. Mr. Bagato explained that the point of having a sign program was so every tenant didn't have to come back. Commissioner Levin said only those on the back side that want illuminated signs. Mr. Bagato said they could add that in. Mr. Bagato asked Mr. Fliday if he would be okay with having the signs on the rear of the building coming back through ARC for approval. Mr. Fliday said yes. Mr. Bagato said they could have that added into the sign program. Chairman Gregory pointed out that would allow others who have frontage on EI Paseo to also have an illuminated sign on the rear. Mr. Bagato concurred. Chairman Gregory noted that if they allowed it for one simply because they didn't have visibility or access from the front, just one store having it would seem silly when others should have it to just because it conforms. Vice Chair Van Vliet didn't want to promote having a bunch of Page 4 of 47 ` ARCHITECTURAL I�r1EW COMMISSION �r' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 illuminated signage in the back. Chairman Gregory said once someone has it up, the store next to them will ask why they couldn't have it to. Commissioner Lambell answered because they have signage on EI Paseo. Commissioner Levin said they should specify that they only get illuminated signage on one side or the other side. Commissioner Stendell asked if this was the only suite right now presently in the rear on the back. Mr. Fliday clarified that it was the only one that doesn't have a storefront to the front. Commissioner Stendell asked where the store entry would be located; on the south facing wall or in the Paseo. Mr. Fliday wasn't sure yet. Commissioner Touschner asked if there was glass on both corners. Mr. Fliday replied yes. Chairman Gregory asked if they were ready for a motion. MR. MIKE McCALL, the architect for Banana Republic, asked to speak. He said they are moving to this center and were requesting a channel illuminated sign at the rear to go along with their storefront display and they had a high degree of interest in having that approved. They considered it a very important identification of the brand from the parking lot and a way for peopte coming to the center to identify where they actually are without having to go back around to the other side and wander around trying to find it. They thought it was very important from a brand identity point and from a directional point of view. It is halo-illuminated signage and they thought it was appropriate, especially with the sea of parking, the distance of parking, and the canopy and its relationship to the residential area. He wanted to see them make a motion that allows signage on the rear for the tenants at the front as well, and if it was channel illuminated, that would be great because that's what they prefer. Chairman Gregory reiterated that his comment referred to all the tenants who have signage on the south side of the building to be allowed to have channel letters. Page 5 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. McCall said that was the only way to identify them. If they don't have signage, how else would people know they are in the center when they approach it from the rear? Chairman Gregory clarified that it wasn't about having signage, the issue was about the illumination of it. Mr. McCall thought halo-illuminated would be appropriate and they wouldn't need external illumination for the evening and night. They would be able to see it in a discrete and very classy way. He thought that was the most appropriate lighting. Face-lit he would agree would be inappropriate. Chairman Gregory asked if there were any more comments. There was no response. Chairman Gregory asked for Commission comments or a motion. In discussing the motion, Chairman Gregory said he actually agreed with the architect and didn't have a problem with signage on the south side of the building having reverse channel. Action: It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, accepting the sign program as proposed with the understanding that reverse channel halo-lit signs be allowed for all signage on the south side of the building, each to be submitted on an individual basis. Commissioner Levin asked if there was anything in the code that prohibits signage on both the EI Paseo side and rear. Mr. Bagato said no; the concern was illumination. Commissioner Touschner agreed with Chairman Gregory. Her only concern was she didn't think they had done their due diligence to understand the sight line. As a stand-alone item, she thought it was appropriate, appropriate for the building, and appropriate for the individuals that are going to be at the complex. Absolutely it was nice to know what's on the other side and not have to go to EI Paseo to see what paseo to cut through. Yet ARC had no idea what that's going to look like to those neighbors. She agreed that there should be signage there, but to say exactly if it should be lit or not, she thought they should see a better section to see what people will perceive and see. Chairman Gregory noted that his motion required every storefront to be approved on an individual basis and would go to ARC with each application to make sure there is no conflict. Or, if they felt that it might be Page 6 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL R��..✓IEW COMMISSION �+` MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 seen, they could require that the illumination be turned back, and they have done that many times requesting that it be put on a rheostat or some way to keep the illumination down if it was deemed too bright. Commissioner Touschner was fine if he wanted to bring all of them back; she thought it would be nice if they could resolve this once. If it came back with a section, they could resolve it. Chairman Gregory said it was a resolution now, not so much for specifics, but rather for the general intent of the sign program. That's how he saw it. When specifics come in, that's when they could request a sight line or cross section. He didn't know if it was necessary yet. Right now, in principle, that's how he felt and what the motion was for. Mr. Bagato suggested having the applicant bring back a line-of-sight at the next meeting that could be approved as part of the sign program. Commissioner Lambell asked how many signs are lit on the back side of The Gardens now. Mr. Fliday said none. Commissioner Lambell asked if it was correct that there is residential right up to it. Mr. Fliday said yes, there is on Shadow Mountain. They did get approved, when Phil Drell was still here, when Kelly Pasta opened up, a sign on the back which was illuminated, as an exception. Then they said at The Gardens any others would have to be brought in individually and each individual case would be determined if they could have a sign on the back. Quite frankly, it was an illuminated sign and they could barely even see it. They would have to look for it. Basically, it was for the people in the parking lot and not across the street. Commissioner Lambell remembered that conversation very well. She thought the intent at that point was not to clutter up a really good-looking set of buildings with a lot of signage. She still agreed with that. She drives down Shadow Mountain and comes in that back way many times to The Gardens to park up on top. She knew where she was going and it wasn't a problem. If she didn't know where she was going, she would get to a directional sign, which they had done a very good job of in telling her where she needed to go from there. She felt the same way about the backside of these buildings. Because they do have those neighbors that are there also, they don't want to clutter up an otherwise good looking Page 7 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE`�W COMMISSION `'�` ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 building. They roll up the sidewalks around here about 8:00 p.m. To attract somebody to come at night time with an itluminated sign maybe happens once every blue moon. It just doesn't happen that often. Mr. Bagato asked the applicant if they were going to have customer access to the tenant spaces in the back or if they were only service doors and they just wanted signage over them. Mr. Fliday clarified those were service doors in the back. He asked Mr. McCall if they would have access to the back. Mr. McCatl said no. Mr. Bagato pointed out that customers would still have to walk all the way around to the front. Mr. McCall said ideally they would know which one to walk around and there would be a relationship between the displays, the logo and the signage, and the brand identity. Commissioner Lambell thought the ones they were talking about had brand identity and are very well known. Banana Republic, people know their logo and what it is; she didn't think an illuminated sign was necessarily going to help someone at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. McCall said that was an interesting point. The illumination wasn't for 3 or 4 in the afternoon, she was right. It's a black sign, but it has a slight halo illumination, so in the early evening during holiday season, etc., people would be able to identify the location. Commissioner Lambell just didn't want to see the building get cluttered up with a lot of signage on that back side. Mr. Fliday didn't think that was their intent, but he would like to see if they could be approved individually. If they want a sign in the back, then address it individually by tenant. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a directory sign in the back after someone parked in the lot. Mr. Fliday said they didn't have that right now at The Gardens. There were no directional signs until they get into the center itself. Page 8 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�.�rIEW COMMISSION `�+`` MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Stendell agreed with the Chair's motion. It pretty much spelled it out. There was one condition which has to be looked at just because of the nature of where the store is; if they were looking at giving them a back-lit sign for their purpose, then at least what the Chair's motion did was create a situation where they have to come back and ARC could ask for a line-of-sight. He said he drives Shadow Mountain all the time and looking at it right now, it was stark and he didn't see any reason for any signage back there unless there is a store back there. But at least they have an opportunity to bring it forth if they request it. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that once one has an illuminated sign, they would. all request it. It seemed that Commissioner Touschner was correct. Get the sign program together and deal with it. Rather than discuss each one that says Banana Republic did it, why can't I do it, seems sort of a waste of time. Unless they decide it's all or nothing today, and she didn't know if she was willing to do that. Commissioner Van Vliet thought they needed the flexibility to look at these and bring them back and make a decision on an individual basis. Commissioner Touschner asked if Chairman Gregory would restate his motion. The motion was finalized as follows: It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, accepting the sign program as submitted with the understanding that the signage for the south facing exposure of the building would have to be reviewed on an individual submittal basis, and that the signage would be allowed to have back-lit halo-type lighting. The strength of the lighting could be adjusted by the City to make sure that it conforms to an acceptable amount of light. Cross section and line-of-sight drawings might be required to be submitted at that time. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. ***Please see page 13 referring to an additional condition*** Page 9 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE''�W COMMISSION '� ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-94 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FINN DANIELS ARCHITECTS, Attn: Sarah Gunderson, 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 301, St. Paul, MN, 55116. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront design; Janie and Jack. LOCATION: 73-425 EI Paseo Drive, Suite 116 (EI Paseo Village) ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Tony Bagato explained that Janie and Jack would be located in the EI Paseo Village project. Elevations were on display, as well as the elevations for Mastro's to serve as an example, since it was located across the open paseo. Janie and Jack was the first tenant in that corner. He indicated that the color material was submitted. He recommended approval of the design and noted that the applicant was present. MS. MELINDA DE LA CRUZ, the project representative, said they have incorporated all of their Janie and Jack brand elements in the storefront, which would be the pilasters, the window treatments, the canopy, and all the colors. They have used this standard design on all their stores nationally. She also had photos of other stores. Chairman Gregory asked if anyone had a strong objection to anything in the request. Commissioner Touschner said she was fine with it, but was curious about the windows up above and if they would have window coverings. Ms. De La Cruz said no, they were a frosted type of glass, so they wouldn't be able to see through it. Commissioner Touschner said that was fine. Commissioner Lambell asked if the applicant knew what color was around them in the building. Was it the terra cotta / iron ore red? Mr. Bagato said that's what they were expecting. Commissioner Touschner asked if the cream and yellow colors on the steakhouse were the real colors for the base building. Mr. Bagato said they didn't show any alternatives, so it was the same as Mastro's. Commissioner Lambell expressed concern that everyone might be thinking of different colors. She wanted to make sure they are the color of the building. Page 10 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL F�'�.rIEW COMMISSION �++'' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 MR. JOHN VUKSIC, speaking as the project architect, explained that the colors they see are generaily the colors; however, the owner was looking to adjust them a little bit. For example, they think the pink is a little too pink, and so it was going to be more of a terra cotta. So there would be an adjustment submitted to ARC in the near future which would be a little more muted similar to The Gardens, as opposed to the sharper colors represented here. He thought the new color palette would complement the storefronts better than some of these representations. Commissioner Lambell asked where they were leaving that up to; to the final plaster coat? Because if they approve these colors right now, then they were pretty much locked in and was concerned how it was going to look if it was way off of the existing color. Referring to what Mr. Vuksic mentioned earlier about the actual colors being determined onsite, Chairman Gregory pointed out where they were all meant to be different colors, but on paper they looked virtually the same. The nuances would come out later, unless they had actual color chips. These were also being viewed under artificial light as opposed to sunlight. Vice Chair Van Vliet noted this was its own entity anyway and it is so different from its surroundings, in architecture and for color, it would just stand out and be different. And they are probably trademark colors. Ms. De La Cruz confirmed they are trademark colors. Commissioner Touschner thought Chairman Gregory went over a good point. In the final, if they were going to revise the colors, they would come back to ARC for review. Mr. Bagato said for Davis Street, yes. He explained this was the same approach they took with the existing Gardens. They used kind of muted, not as bold colors, so that the tenants have individual storefronts. He brought it up only because it was shown as a gray background. Commissioner Touschner said the texture of materials and the depth of where the walls and canopies are just added to the streetscape. Commissioner Lambell thought it was fine with these colors; that wasn't her concern. Her concern was that they were changing the colors of the building and that all of this is taken into account; that someone isn't just picking the color without knowing all of the other things that are happening in and around it at the same time. Page 11 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL REi�W COMMISSION �`` � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. Vuksic ciarified that they weren't changing the colors drastically they were just trying to fine tune and provide a backdrop for the tenants, similar to The Gardens. Commissioner Levin asked if the blade sign was lit. Ms. De La Cruz said no, it was not illuminated. Commissioner Levin asked if the only lighting on the main Janie and Jack sign were the exterior lights shining on it. Ms. De La Cruz said that was correct. Mr. Fliday stated that none of the blade signs woufd be lit. Action It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, granting final approval of the Janie and Jack storefront design as presented. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. Commissioner Touschner asked if the light fixtures shown in the various elevations were part of the building standards, even though they are drawn differently by everyone; kind of on the columns for lack of a better word. Commissioner Van Vliet said he also assumed they were standard. Mr. Bagato asked if the light fixtures were provided by the shell building and if they would all be uniform. Mr. Vuksic concurred. ***Please see page 13 referring to an additional condition*** 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-95 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GAP INC., 850 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, CA, 94066. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront design; Banana Republic. LOCATION: 73-425 EI Paseo Drive, Suite 104 (EI Paseo Village) ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Tony Bagato stated that this is an individual tenant. He said that they were proposing a storefront material using granite and marble. Their sign Page 12 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL R�IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 criteria and awnings fall within their sign program. The materials and design details were reviewed by staff and were acceptable. Mr. Bagato said that unless the architect wished to add anything, staff was recommending approval. Commissioner Touschner had a comment about the inside. She acknowledged it pertained to the inside, but was a concern of hers, and that was the location of the handicap dressing space. It was located at the bottom, and she could see why it was drawn that way, she just thought they as architects needed to think about individuals who have challenges, possibly mobility challenges, and how they could make their lives a little bit better. Mr. McCall appreciated the comment and said that he would discuss that with his client on a going forward basis. It was a really good point. Chairman Gregory asked for other comments. Action It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Levin, granting final approval of the Banana Republic storefront design as presented. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. Mr. Fliday asked if that included the illuminated sign at the rear of the building. Commissioner Levin said he was just noticing that because on the plan it says 18-inch black reverse halo-lit. Mr. Bagato noted that all of the storefront approvals do not include signage because the sign program wasn't approved or finalized yet. Chairman Gregory suggested that they bring in a line-of-sight drawing when they do come in. Mr. Fliday said they would have their architect do a line-of-sight drawing. ***While everyone dealing with EI Paseo Village was still present, Mr. Bagato added that Public Works was restricting any of the awnings or any projections that come off the building from extending past the property line. There should be a five-foot setback and they wanted to make sure that no awnings extend into that five-foot line; they wouldn't be able to Page 13 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�'.W COMMISSION `'�' � MINUTES � MARCH 23, 2010 build it like that. And if there were any plans or modifications, they would require a landscape plan as well. That applied to all the applicants on EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato said that would be included on the notice of action. Mr. McCall asked if that would be included in the written comments. Mr. Bagato said he would make sure that was included in the notice that gets sent out. 4. CASE NO: MISC 10-101 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LCI HOLDINGS / JUICY COUTURE, One Claiborne Avenue, North Bergen, NJ, 07047. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront design; Juicy Couture. LOCATION: 73-445 EI Paseo Drive, Suite 100 (EI Paseo Village) ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Tony Bagato explained that the request was for final approval of the storefront design for Juicy Couture. Their representative today was their architect, Mr. John Vuksic. He noted that there were new designs which were just distributed. When he reviewed the sign program, all the signs had to be located on the retail space and their sign was shown above the retail space and on the core of the building, so modifications had to be made. The design in their packet is different from the one handed out today; the sign and awnings had been lowered. In reviewing this, his initial concern from reviewing it compared to the rest of the tenants was that perhaps not enough was going on. He contacted Mr. Vuksic for some clarification on the details. Based on his responses, Mr. Bagato still had some concerns with the design. The windows were designed to have a clear window in the front with silicone attachments on the sides, but in the back there were mullions only on the back half of the window. So when someone looks through the window, they will see the back end of the mullion, and in the front they wouldn't have it. From a design standpoint, he thought that might look a little odd, incomplete, and not well designed for EI Paseo or in this building. With the new feature, to accommodate the signage and lower the awnings, they added a bronze trim header. In the elevation it looked fine, but in the detail drawing it shows that it's actually in front of the shell and Page 14 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL R'`t�w1EW COMMISSION `'� MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 wasn't flush with the building or inserted in, which would provide a little more detail. If they looked at page A1004 at the sign and the header, there were actually two stacked panels on top of each other, which was also kind of an odd detail. So he did have some concerns with that and wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention. He discussed his concerns with the architect, Mr. Vuksic. Mr. Bagato said he would prefer a modification to include full mullions because they have to have them to support the windows. And for the detail on the bronze header, it should be flush if not recessed to provide some kind of reveal, depth and play in texture. The signage and color of the awnings was acceptable. The other materials also looked fine, and he recommended approval with the changes. Mr. Vuksic explained that the mullions they were talking about were the dividing mullions, the ones in the fields of glass. The color board showed a bronze metal panel which would be the color of those window mullions and the large field of bronze above the awnings. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if it was the lower windows they were talking about. Mr. Vuksic said yes. The bronze frame around the perimeter is on the outside of the glass, but the vertical dividing mullions are actually proposed on the back of the glass right now. Commissioner Stendell asked if that was just an add-on/plant-on. Mr. Vuksic said it was actually providing some structural support. Commissioner Levin asked if it was between the panes. Mr. Vuksic said no, it's on the back. Mr. Bagato said it's only on the back, so on the front they would see the back, which is the storefront, and that was his concern. Commissioner Lambell asked if it was all the way, 360. Mr. Vuksic said yes, they are all bronze. Commissioner Stendell asked if the glass sizes were compatible with the gross openings. Page 15 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION `"�` � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. Vuksic said yes. Chairman Gregory asked what the specific reason was for the mullions being on the inside and not going through. Mr. Vuksic explained that the tenant would like to have the sense of having a clear expansive glass. They didn't like the lines breaking it up on the outside; they wanted it to look like a clean sheet of glass. Chairman Gregory said the only reason for his suspicion was because obviously on some lower cost production homes, that is a cost savings measure and wondered if it might be the same thing here, or if there was a good reason for it, like it being easier to clean the windows or give them what they want. Mr. Vuksic's understanding was that it was the look they wanted from the outside; they really didn't want the lines on the outside. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if they would still have some vertical lines on the big panels. Mr. Vuksic said yes, they would have them on the inside of the glass and they would have a silicone joint because they are individual pieces of glass. Vice Chair Van Vliet thought he was trying to do one big piece. Commissioner Touschner agreed. She said that wasn't going to hold up well in this heat after a while. That would be her concern. Commissioner Stendell noted that several years ago there was a store that they did a butt glass and they ran into problems with the Building Department because of the safety issue of the glass with the fall through capability of it. They were having five pieces of glass right there. He asked what the actual safety issue on a fall through on that was as opposed to having an actual mullion with snap grids. Mr. Vuksic said he heard they engineered this. They originally intended to have butt-jointed glass and no mullions in the field at all. But they went ahead and added them to provide some structural support that they needed. Mr. Bagato recommended that the mullions be carried through on the outside as well. Commissioner Touschner agreed. Page 16 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL R'�IEW COMMISSION '� MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Stendell recommended that if they were going to carry the mullions on the outside, just put in a reduced sized frame, and use a piece of flash instead of a full storefront mullion. At least they would get the strength of an aluminum backing with a snap-in grid and have it weather sealed. The one was 20 feet of glass. He would hate to see silicone joints being the only thing that supported that glass. Chairman Gregory asked if it was really supporting the glass. Commissioner Stendell said no. Commissioner Levin said it was supporting the framing, not the glass itself, but the span across the top. Commissioner Stendell said that was the support for the structure, but asked what the break through/break away was of the glass joint. If there was an actual mullion there, there was a factor they could calculate. When they put two pieces of glass together, at what point does it give? That was his only concern from a standpoint of safety. Chairman Gregory assumed that the safety issue would be handled by a different City department, so ARC's perspective should be more of aesthetics. If they feel aesthetically it might look better with the mullions going right through, then that was a different story. Commissioner Stendell asked if the awning color went from white to pink. Mr. Vuksic said it would be solid pink. Mr. Bagato and the Commission discussed the outside bronze metal panel. Mr. Bagato explained that it extends four inches over the shell. He recommended that it either be flush or recessed to give some variation; flush would be the minimum. If the applicant disagreed, they could request reconsideration. Commission agreed. Commissioner Touschner's issue with it sticking out was that it would be a dust trap. It would always be dusty and when it rains, everything on it would roll right down it. So that whole dark band would be nice for two weeks and then after the first rain it would be terrible. She didn't think it was going to look well / wear well. The bronze band strip would be four inches. It would also be great for pigeons to sit on, then they would come back asking to add spikes. It was a nice rich brown color but it would always be streaked. That was her concern, but in the end, she agreed it would give it a look that they would want. Chairman Gregory noted that the focus was on two items and asked if there was a motion. Page 17 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Action It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, granting final approval of the Juicy Couture storefront design with two exceptions. That the bronze signage element that is sticking out from the building should either be flush or recessed, and that the mullion and the caulking not be visible. That was not an acceptable detail to have flat glass with caulking exposed to the exterior. Mr. Vuksic agreed that was alright. He heard their concern. He hadn't actually thought about things running down the faces, but he could see that. As far as the glass butting, he asked if they were okay with butt-jointed glass on the storefront in general if they could butt it without any mullion. Were they okay with that? Commissioner Touschner thought the silicone was their aesthetic weak link. Mr. Bagato thought it should either be mullioned or clear pane if they could do it; he didn't think structurally they could do solid, but would prefer it that way; one of those two. Chairman Gregory asked if storefront glass was butted all the time. Vice Chair Van Vliet said he really didn't have any problem with butting it and siliconing it, but they should either have the mullions inside and out, or not have them. Commissioner Lambell thought they should be given the opportunity to come back with something. Mr. Vuksic preferred that it not be continued. He thought butt- jointed glass was pretty common in retail storefronts. If they could achieve that, he requested that they consider letting him do that without the mullions. Either they have the mullions through the glass or don't have mullions. Chairman Gregory requested that the motion be rephrased. It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, that they revisit the bronze strip to either be flush or recessed and that butt glass is allowed, but there should not be framing on only one side; there should be framing on both sides of the glass or no frame. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. Page 18 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�.✓IEW COMMISSION 'r.+fi MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 5. CASE NO: MISC 09-313 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA, 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of signage components for the EI Paseo revitalization plan. LOCATION: EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 S.P. Ms. Missy Grisa explained that before them was the EI Paseo revitalization plan, which they had seen before. She said that Mr. Bryce White from the Redevelopment Agency provided a packet that addressed all the previous comments. One of the main requests was to identify Highway 74 with the paving treatments that were on the opposite end of Portola Avenue. That had been matched. The other large item was the signage. At the tast meeting they requested that the applicant put up mock-up signs. She took pictures in case not everyone was able to see them. She noted that some might look far away, but she wanted to show how someone might see the signs driving to the site. She went through the pictures. As they got closer to the stop light, their main concern was the height of the sign which was quite tall. Her opinion was changed from the previous staff report where before she thought it would be too tall; where it is was still quite tall, but if they are driving through traffic, it was visible above the height of an adjacent car. Chairman Gregory asked if the same criterion was applied to each sign in the sense that the bottom of each sign is a specific height above the bottom of the sign, like 8 feet or 7 feet 6 inches, something like that, every sign. Do they all meet the same criterion? Was the height of the sign determined from the ground to the bottom of the sign? MR. BRYCE WHITE, Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, explained that they do have various heights from the top of the signs to the bottom of the signs. The determining factor here was visibility. He didn't think it exactly fit within the signage for the city as a whole, because this was a unique set of circumstances where they are putting in signage for a particular street. That's why they did the mock-ups. The height was picked by their sign designer. Chairman Gregory was just wondering if they were conforming to a specific Engineering Department requirement. Page 19 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�`W COMMISSION � � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. White said no. He confirmed that considerations were given so that they wouldn't be hit, but in general the height was determined for visibility purposes. Ms. Grisa said that the secondary signage appeared to be located behind the traffic signal. She asked if it could be moved forward or farther back from the signal and closer to the street to make sure it is visible. The last photograph showed the signs connected to the light standards. She thought it could be a little bit lower, but she was alright with it there. Commissioner Levin asked about them being visible at night from a reflective standpoint. Mr. White explained that they are located under a street light. That height determination was set by the Public Works Department for truck purposes, although they could persuade them to go slightly lower. But that was the height they wanted. If ARC wanted him to go back to Public Works to try and persuade them, he thought their minimum was probably over 14 feet or 14'6"; 16 feet was what they wanted. Commissioner Vuksic said he was really surprised when he looked at these photographs. When he looked at the other two signs he thought they looked great. He wasn't able to find the third sign..He drove right past it. Mr. White said those particular signs, there would be three of them as they go east on EI Paseo. There would be one as they come west. And interspersed with that would be banner signs on the other light signals, which would be the same type of banners as in the EI Paseo Shopping District. They were just directional to encourage people to keep going. The height of them could be discussed with Public Works, such as 14 feet rather than 16 feet. Chairman Gregory noted that these were banner height. Mr. White said yes. Chairman Gregory asked about the criterion for this particular height. Mr. White explained it was the Public Works Department's concern with vehicular traffic and the possibility of them being hit. Page 20 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL F�rIEW COMMISSION �✓ MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Touschner asked if there was a diagram that talked about height and remembered a mention of banner height and asked if it was part of it. Mr. White confirmed it was shown, and the rest of the sign heights as welL Commissioner Touschner mentioned the directional signage. He confirmed that it said 16 feet to the bottom. If they wanted him to fight that out with Public Works, he'd be willing to take that up with them, assuming that they would grant that. Commissioner Vuksic said he drove right passed and didn't even see it. On the third page back, the picture of Highway 74 right where J. Russell is right now, Commissioner Stendell asked where the sign would be moved to, between the stop light and the other light pole. Mr. White said they determined that separately. They were going to move it about six feet further back, which would be to the west, and two feet closer to the curb. It would go back a little further and closer to the curb to avoid that signal. He said they appreciated Missy's observation, as well as her presentation. Commissioner Touschner agreed and said the pictures were great. Commission concurred. Mr. White said that on the directional signs, even though they might appear a little small in the pictures, they do have ribbons that would be attached to them in the various metallics, so that would add a certain dimension, color and sparkle. Commissioner Levin said eye catching. Mr. White concurred, saying that they would have a slight movement or feeling of movement. Commissioner Levin noted that in L.A. and other big cities they advertise for museums with big banners and asked if we do anything similar. Mr. White said we don't put banners across the street, but we do have banners on the light standards in the medians right now on EI Paseo that have seasonal banners, special occasions. As part of Page 21 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL REb�W COMMISSION `'�' � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 this project, they were recommending putting in street lights along each side of the street and they would have the capability of having banners on them. Commissioner Levin asked if they would conflict with the median banners. Mr. White said no, because they would be using the same banners in both locations. Commissioner Levin noted that Mr. White talked about the bulb outs, with the rest stops and seating areas as being shuttle stops, and asked if that was a traffic hazard since they bulb out right into the lane. Mr. White noted that currently they stop in the lane of traffic and allow people to be picked up, so it amounts to the same thing that happens right now. Commissioner Touschner asked if the signs woutd be two sided. Mr. White said yes, all signs would be two-sided, except for the directional signs on the light standards. Those were just directional going one way. The smaller ones they thought were maybe too high. They would be painted on both sides, but the signage was just one direction. Commissioner Touschner asked if those all had one leg. Mr. White clarified that they were attached directly to the light post, the smaller ones that are up high. For the ones that are one sided, Commissioner Touschner asked what was on the other side. Mr. White said it was just going to be the main color shown. The ribbons would be visible from the back side. It woutd be the same color, but there wouldn't be any signage because the signage in this case says EI Paseo Shopping District with an arrow pointing. Commissioner Touschner suggested having the same words without an arrow. Mr. White thought that saying EI Paseo Shopping District wouldn't be appropriate because they weren't in the shopping district. The EI Paseo Shopping District is a one-mile section beginning at Highway Page 22 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL 1�1EW COMMISSION �.✓` MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 74 and stopping at Portola Avenue. There was also an EI Paseo Improvement District there. Commissioner Touschner thought it was a missed opportunity leaving it blank there. Mr. White wasn't quite certain what would be appropriate there, but was willing to take suggestions. Commissioner Lambell said they were still going to see the matching hardware just like the toothpick signs. Mr. White said they will be on the far side of the street so that these light standards would be on one side of the street, the direction they are going, and on the other side of the street they would not find them very observable anyway. He clarified that three of them are directional, three of them say EI Paseo Shopping District, and three of them are banners. Commissioner Lambell wanted to talk about the legs on the other ones, the ones that are quite tall, the primary signs. Mr. White explained that they are made out of inetal ribbons. Referring to the chart provided, where it says primary signage, that gave the dimensions of the signage and the colors, and they do have the actual palette with all the colors on it. Commissioner Touschner thought this was much nicer because it is double sided. Mr. White pointed out the ribbon colors, noting that they were primarily actual metal and three of them were slightly different. He confirmed all sides were completety incased. The metal goes all the way up all four sides. Commissioner Lambell commented that these are much better than the way finding signs because they are double sided legs. Mr. White thought it was primarily from a permanent artistic element, the shape of the sign, and then the signage was serving its purpose as well, which they thought was quite presentable. Commissioner Touschner asked about the smaller signs at the corners. Page 23 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION 'w.+�'` � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Referring to the submittal packet and the page called Secondary Signage Enlargement, Mr. White explained that it was the same colors as the primary sign, and all the signs have the same color elements, the ribbons are the same, there are just fewer of them so they are eliminating some of the ribbon elements. He confirmed that they are double sided. Commissioner Touschner said she would go along with the other Commissioners, but thought they should double side the banner signs, even if it was with the Palm Desert logo. Mr. White said he would talk to their people about putting some kind of wording or the Patm Desert logo. Commissioner Lambell said driving west on EI Paseo she would see the back of that sign, so they would be seen. Mr. White thought the Palm Desert logo was appropriate, unless there were other suggestions. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if this would just be adding clutter by putting the logo or something on the back side. Ms. Grisa explained that the logo is very intricate and detailed, but there is a Palm Desert marketing logo with a PD and palm tree coming out of it. That might work better and was just a suggestion. Mr. White asked if the Commission would allow him work with staff to come up with something without coming back to the Architectural Review Commission. Commission agreed. Commissioner Lambell stated that she didn't see these in person and apologized. It felt tall to her, but she would defer to those that did see them and thought they were okay. Mr. White said they did have people stopping by in person saying they looked great and some of them said they would like to see them stay. They had positive reactions from people on the street. Not many people walk on the street, but since it was up for two hours, he and the designer were out there for a period of time. Page 24 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�rIEW COMMISSION '�+'` MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Touschner thought that pictures really do reinforce if they are the right height; six inches here and there wasn't going to make a difference. She thought they do reinforce that they work and do what they are supposed to do. Chairman Gregory said perhaps with one exception: the ones on the light post, which were too high. Mr. White said he would talk to Public Works. He asked if they would allow him to have the discretion if they don't allow them to be lowered, to leave it at that height. He agreed with the Commission and had wanted them lowered to start with as well. In response to his comment, Chairman Gregory thought they have painfufly become accustomed to that high height. Maybe because this one is so much higher, so relatively speaking these others look pretty good. He didn't think the Commissioners were as bothered as they were last time. Mr. White said he would ask them to go down to maybe 14 feet, which he always thought was an appropriate height; two feet lower from the current 16 feet. Commissioner Lambell said two feet would be a huge improvement. Ms. Grisa said there was one other item she wanted to bring up. One of the action items was to provide detailing of how the crosswalks would intersect with the medians at all intersections. If they looked at Tab 2 in their packets, they increased the pavers to fill up the entire area between the crosswalks, and now there was concrete banding outside the median head there, and then there was a small portion of pavers that go beyond that. If they looked at the second page, it looked like the concrete bands intersect the median. So she just wanted to clarify if those would be outside of all the medians or intersecting. Mr. White said it should be outside all of them. The picture they had of the overall streetscape was correct. It was just overlooked. Commissioner Touschner thought it was a lot of concrete. Chairman Gregory asked what kind of motion staff would like from ARC if they were so inclined. Page 25 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION '��+" � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. White said there was one other discussion on the retrofit pole covers. It was discussed previously, and they tried to figure out where ARC wanted it at on the caps. It wasn't in the minutes, but was part of the discussion. Basically, the poles that exist out there right now don't have any caps on them. They originally showed the retrofit with caps and the poles coming up about six inches. There was some discussion that might be too high or not appropriate. So they brought pictures of retrofit poles in: one without anything coming up over the top; the middle with it coming up slightly; and the third coming up about six inches. He had looked at the other communities and La Quinta has some poles and Palm Springs has some retrofit poles and they come up slightly. The manufacturer recommends coming up, but he personally didn't have a preference, it was whatever the Commission felt was appropriate. He thought the middle coming up slightly just over the top with the cap, but he was here for their direction. Commissioner Levin asked if it was the one that says "Free Parking" on it. Mr. White said yes. Commissioner Levin said that was the one he preferred. Chairman Gregory and the other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Touschner referred to an example sheet to show the comparison of that sign against the stop sign. Mr. White confirmed that one was lower there. Public Works allowed them lower in the main district itself down to 12 feet because there is parking. They were aware they might be clipped by trucks, but they would all be break-away banners. Public Works wanted them higher, but allowed them to be lower. Commissioner Stendell asked why the secondary sign was only nine feet to the bottom and the directional signage 16. He would like to see it lower. Granted, the sign is shorter, but this is the one that Public Works wanted higher. Mr. White reiterated that they would go to Public Works and request it go down to 14 feet, which he thought was appropriate. The one on the light pole is closer to the street; he didn't know if it actually overhangs or not. This secondary sign doesn't overhang the street. Page 26 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�rIEW COMMISSION "�+✓' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Touschner asked about the crosswalk. She said it would be a lot when it is all filled in. She knew it was only happening in two locations, but wanted to know if everyone was comfortable with that. Ms. Grisa said it was in six of them. Mr. White ctarified there were eight locations where it is all filled in. Ms. Grisa said Portola Avenue and Highway 74 are blank using the regular typical median material and the rest are filled in. Mr. White said they originally they had them where it wasn't filled in. The Commission a while back gave the suggestion to fill them in and so they brought one design with them filled and without them filled. The Commission said they liked them filled in, so that's what they went with. He said they could go back to the other too; it was whatever the Commission wanted on that. He thought it did give more of a classy look. Commissioner Touschner asked if they were okay with it horizontal. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked if Mr. White said Portola Avenue and Highway 74 had no paving. Mr. White clarified that it has no paving in the center, so it was kind of transitional between the two. Mr. Bagato asked if there was a motion for approval. Commissioner Vuksic had one more item. He thought they had talked about it before, but he was always concerned about the lighting under the bench lip. Mr. White clarified the lighting would be hidden behind the bench lip. Commissioner Vuksic thought that was okay. Ms. Grisa noted that the construction drawings would come back to them for final approval. The current request was mainly just for the signage and to get the signage going. She wasn't sure how quickly they were moving forward with everything else. Mr. White said they wanted to know if this was the direction the Commission wanted them to proceed in so when they come back Page 27 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION "`�'' � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 with the final pians, they are bringing back what ARC wants. Primarily it was the signage they were actually doing at the moment. Action It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to approve the design package contingent upon Mr. White going back to the Public Works Department and discussing further the height of the directional signage to try to lower it two feet (16 feet to 14 feet). They were okay with the intersections as is. Commission also requested that the applicant work with staff to explore signage on the back at Planning staff's discretion. Clutter was a concern, if he thought there was too much stuff going on. The pole caps were to match the "Free Parking" design on the retrofit signage. The motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): K.B. HOME, 36310 Inland Valley Drive, Wildomar, CA 92595. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of six new architectural and landscape plans to be built on 32 lots within Tract 33935, and 32 lots within Tract 34391. LOCATION: Kingston Court and Imperial Court ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Kevin Swartz informed the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) that the applicant had a power point presentation, but he would first give a brief staff report. He noted that the project is for 64 lots off of Shepherd Lane on Kingston Court and Imperial Court. It was continued from the February 9, 2010, meeting to allow the applicant to return with revised elevations. ARC didn't go into each plan in detail, but provided comments that included thicker wall elements for all elevations and setting the windows back to create a shadowbox effect. There was also concern with the French style model and a suggestion to just go with the Tuscan style. That the roofs were large and needed some variation in the roof design. The Commission as a whole believed that the proposed homes were not in keeping with the surrounding area. Page 28 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL F�Irwr�EW COMMISSION `��+' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. Swartz said that there would be six architectural styles of homes ranging in size from 1 ,250 square feet to 1,991 square feet. The applicant changed the French style to a Tuscan style and each home would have an option to have a three-car garage to provide some relief. Staff suggested providing a side entry garage to create more of a pop-out. The applicant incorporated pop-outs over the entryways. Mr. Swartz said the landscaping still needed to be approved. The applicant did submit for the complex model homes and those issues had been addressed; the applicant agreed to make those changes. Staff was recommending that the ARC provide comments to the applicant. MR. RON FISHER, K.B. Home, said he was glad to be back. They had done an extensive rework of their plans. He indicated the project is located west of Portola and north of Frank Sinatra, bifurcated east and west by Shepherd Lane, which runs north and south. They have two streets there, Kingston Court and Imperial Court and a total of 64 lots, which range in size from 70 feet in width to 77 feet in width. He showed examples of some of the existing architecture in the area. It is a PR-5 Planned Residential zone with 20-foot front yard setbacks, 15-foot rear yard setbacks, and a combined 14 feet on the side yards. The parking lot was on Lot 17. Lots 19-21 would be the models. Mr. Fischer said there were six unique plans ranging from 1,250 square feet. They would all have a minimum two-car garage up to 1,991 , which was their large plan, Plan 6. Plan 4 was actually Plan 3 with the casita added to it. That was where the extra 231 feet came from. He showed Plan 1 and indicated that they added tower entries, additional relief to the front, and all the windows now have a shadowbox effect. They added trim around the windows to provide that. He showed Plan 1 with the optional third car garage. Plan 2 was offered in the Italianate, Tuscan and Spanish styles, and with an optional third car garage. Plan 3 he called the empty nester plan because it provides a casita and a place to put the grandkids when they visit. Plan 5 is 1,771 square feet, four bedrooms, three car garage, and then the largest plan is four bedrooms in the same three elevation styles: Tuscan, Italianate and Spanish and with a third-car attached garage. Commissioner Lambell thanked him for coming up with the Tuscan model. She thought it was a vast improvement over the French one shown last time. Mr. Fisher said the stone really added something to it. Page 29 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE`1M�W COMMISSION '�'" MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Lambell was blown away by how much better these houses look with the third car garage. All of a sudden it was taking it out of the cookie cutter house and it has added depth and shadow and visually made a huge difference. Mr. Fisher agreed that it was much more compatible with the existing area. Commissioner Lambell also thought that the third car garage allowed for greater storage. That house looked like the price point they were looking at. Good job. Mr. Fisher said they were dealing with a different market now. There has been a major paradigm shift in the market and they have to be much more sensitive to pricing then they have in past years. They have made that an option and he suspected, given the option price, which was going to be quite reasonable, that most people will probably buy that option, particularly in that area. It is a really attractive area. He thought they would find the sales quite brisk there. There are great views; they can see Big Bear and Mt. San Jacinto from their yard. Commissioner Lambell agreed. She said it was just a wow. And it was all how it is marketed and how it comes out of the sales person's mouth. She asked how many square feet were in that third car garage. Mr. Fisher replied 200 square feet. Commissioner Lambell said what they get in terms of visual impact was huge. Vice Chair Van Vliet said they talked last time about carrying architecture around all four sides of the building. On the eave detail, on the fourth page, Plan 150, the 1250, the upper left corner showed the eave stopping and not being carried around. He asked if they were stopping it. It looked like they were turning it back about three feet around the side of the building and not continuing it around. Mr. Fisher asked the architect who heads up the K.B. architecture to address the Commission. MR. DAVE SCHLETTER, K.B. Home Southern California Project Director, explained that if they looked at the back of the house especially, it is a Page 30 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�..r°IEW COMMISSION �wr+�' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 straight eave. If he carried that crown that's under the eave around the back, it would impede the trim around the windows. They would lose the trim around the windows. If they looked at the eave on the side of the house where it does wrap, that little piece, they could see that it comes down about seven or eight inches. If he did that on the back of the house, he would be cutting off that top trim off the back of the house. That was the main reason they didn't carry it back and they needed to find some fairly decent stopping point for that. They figured if they stopped it right at the back of the house it would look like a mistake. This way they stopped it right at the fence line of the house. Commissioner Van Vliet pointed out that it wasn't at the fence line. Mr. Schletter said he could carry it to the fence line. They usually take it back two to four feet, but if it needed to be at the fence line that could be done. Vice Chair Van Vliet thought it looked really odd to stop it there; it looked like they were too cheap to run it around the building. He had the same comment on the wainscoting too. It barely turned the corner. They needed to at least extend it to the privacy wall. He assumed they would have six- foot privacy walls between buildings. Mr. Schletter said yes. He didn't have any problem with carrying that back to the privacy wall. That was fine. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the privacy wall was back from the front face. Mr. Schletter said they would be behind the gas meter and typically falls between seven to ten feet back from the front of the house. He has to keep all the meters in front of the privacy wall. Mr. Fisher interjected that they could sometimes be as short as four feet depending on how the house front yard setbacks are staggered. But normally they take that wrap around to the return wall. They couldn't do that on the gas meter side because they obviously have the gas meter in conflict, so they would stop short of the gas meter. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked why they couldn't continue the veneer behind the gas meter back to the privacy wall. Page 31 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. Schietter clarified the veneer wall would continue back to the privacy wall. On this particular one, the 1,645 Italianate as an example because it had the wainscoting he mentioned, that wainscoting would go behind the gas meter. Vice Chair Van Vliet said all the way to the privacy wall. Mr. Schletter said yes. The gas meter sits out in front of the wall and wasn't a problem. Commissioner Vuksic said that so often seeing the electric meters at the corner of a house, he asked if the meter readers had tools so that they could see over walls and see these things. He thought they did. Did they really need to be out there where chances are they are going to be really visible? Mr. Schletter said that unfortunately, whenever they put them in, that's when they go to public utilities, SCE, and all these different places, and they all want them in front of the fence so they don't have to deal with dogs, they don't have to deal with anything like that; if they have to come and they have to lock the panels, that means they have to go behind the fence and they don't want to have to do that. That's why they are all set out in front of the fence. He didn't disagree with Commissioner Vuksic; he would say though that all of the meters with the exception of the gas meter do get painted to match the side of the house. He realized on the drawings that they were white, but in reality they would be painted to match the house to blend in with the house and all they would see is the actual meter and the gas meter would be gray. Commissioner Vuksic said he has seen them behind walls and asked how they get away with that. Mr. Schletter thought that maybe a homeowner builds a wall in front of it afterward. That was just an opinion. He didn't recall ever seeing a builder build one behind that he was aware of. Commissioner Vuksic knew when they draw houses they draw them behind the walls and it's clearly on the plans and gets built that way. He hadn't heard of any problems, and he was asking, because he wasn't sure if there was a problem. How were those plans approved and how did it function after it's occupied and the meter readers somehow are able to read what they need to. Page 32 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F'i�..rIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. Schletter didn't think it had ever been, at least in his dealings with it, it's ever been a problem reading the meter, at least the electric meter, because they can visually see that. It has to do with getting back there to access it. If they have to lock the meter, if the gas company has to come and they have to shut the gas off for some reason, they don't want to have to go behind the privacy fence because they don't know what's back there. They didn't know if there was a big dog back there for example. They want to stay out on the public side where he thought they felt a little more protected. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they would do something with the electric or if it was just the gas. Mr. Schletter said either one. That is something they could take to the utilities and ask that question. Commissioner Vuksic thought it would make a difference because when they have these on all of the houses, inevitably with desert landscaping they are very visible and they really kind of cheapen the feeling of the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they moved them back from the corner if it would help any. Commissioner Vuksic said yes, the further back the better. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested lowering the telephone and cable tv down and get those two units down. Commissioner Vuksic said one comment he made that really concerned him was the whole thought process was he commented that they stopped the eave at the fence line. What did the eave have to do with the fence line? Mr. Schletter said it didn't. As to the other comment about the wainscot, they typically stop them at the same point. If the wainscot goes back to the fence line, then the eave trim wherever it would happen to be, would go back to the same point just because it's a common stopping point for both pieces. Commissioner Vuksic thought logically it made a lot of sense for the wainscot because it buts into the wall, but the eave is up there and to stop it at the fence line? Mr. Schletter said that's just the way they've been doing it. He didn't necessarily disagree with wrapping it around the house, but Page 33 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�1N COMMISSION '��' � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 � the reasons why they weren't in this case is because it would detract from it, like one example, is all Italian with a hip roof, so that crown mold will hit every single one of those pieces of trim that come around the house over the windows. He thought that conflict would be a worse conflict then stopping the molding. So they have to stop the molding somewhere. They didn't have an inside corner to stop the molding, which is typically where they would stop it. Commissioner Vuksic thought there was something to what he said. He wanted to be careful that they weren't holding them to an unreasonably high standard. Mr. Schletter showed them pictures of other houses and yes, there are some other houses that aren't a whole lot to look at. For example here, the fogically stopping point would be where that form ends, not just stop back four feet just because that's v�here the fence line happens to be down at the ground. Take it all the way back to the end of that gable point of the eave, because then it looks like it has a reason for the change. To make sure he was following this along with all of the elevations, Mr. Schletter asked them to look at the Italiante elevation, maybe the 1 ,645, that one is an all hip roof. He asked how they would stop that; they don't have a gable end, an inside corner or a typical point where he could stop that. They all fall the same way and he had no problem bringing it all back to the fence line; he had no problem with the gable end where the gable starts and the eave stops at that point. Commissioner Vuksic said in a case like that, run it back 20 feet just to get it out of the line of sight from the street. Mr. Schletter said if they would like it to see it out of the line-of-sight or to a gable off of the eave to the gable, then that is fine. Commissioner Vuksic said if there isn't a logical stopping point, it should be 20 feet back so it would be harder to pick up. On the one elevation, Mr. Schletter said he could actually bring it back to the window or just short of the window and stop it at that point. Commissioner Stendell pointed out that it is a foam product and they could take it back 20 feet and just shape it too. Page 34 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�rIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Mr. Schletter said he would actually shape it. Instead of just stopping and cutting it off, he would shape it as if the crown turned and goes into the walL Commissioner Stendell said he wouldn't have to take it back to the window, but take it out of the line-of-sight. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they were building the Tuscan eave. Mr. Schletter said it was just a standard eave with fascia board on it. Commissioner Vuksic asked for clarification that it was a wood fascia board. Mr. Schletter said yes, wood fascia. Commissioner Vuksic asked what size of board they were using. Mr. Schletter said it would be 2 x 6. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about how that would look, especially over a period of time. They had wood fascias on some of the older homes in the area and they look pretty bad after a while; they look dilapidated. He asked what they could to do make that better. Mr. Schletter said that was about the only piece of wood on the outside of these houses. Commissioner Vuksic asked if that was on all the houses, the fascia boards. Mr. Schletter said yes, fascia boards and barge boards. That was the only thing that wrapped around where the roof is and the only thing that was wood. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he looked up under the eave would he see rafter tails. Mr. Schletter said yes. In the case of the Tuscan and in the case where they don't have a crown happening, like on the Spanish they have a crown happening on the front but not on the back, so they would see rafter tails. That was really the only wooden area they Page 35 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL REb�W COMMISSION `.r�' � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 have on the outside of the houses; the rest of it was stucco, foam, etc. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that it was a real potential problem. On the front of the Tuscan model, Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could enhance that detail to the same point they were talking about on the foam details where that's maybe a thicker piece of wood in the front area and maybe have the exposed rafter tails back a certain distance that are more finished looking rafter tails as opposed to a 2 x 6 board. Mr. Schtetter asked if that was on the front inside areas of view. Commissioner Vuksic said he was looking at 149.1558 and looking at the Tuscan elevation, which is the one on the bottom teft, if those gable fascias were 3 x 8's maybe and then they carried a rafter tail detail around the sides where instead of a board, they would actually have rafter tails at every two feet or something that were 3 bys and they had a little detail under them and carried that back like 20 feet, the same as they were on the foam detail, so that from the front at least there was a sense of richness to the elevation and style. Mr. Schletter said that certainly could be done. Commissioner Vuksic said the last comment he was going to make was, Mr. Schletter mentioned shadow boxes the last time they talked about the walls in front needing some thickness to them and he thought they had a little bit of a misunderstanding because it looked like in a couple of cases they way they dealt with that was to create a trim around the window. What they really meant was to make those walls thick. Wherever they didn't have another layer of a colonnade where that wall was just it and that was their front, those walls needed to be thicker so that the window is set back from the wall plane. Mr. Schletter said on the front elevation, going back to the 1,250 plan, the first one, when they look at the three front elevations what they chose to do to hopefully meet that requirement is they did add trim to that window, some pot shelves to the windows to give a little more depth, but in every case they picked one window in this case on the gable end on the Spanish on the right side, on the Tuscan on the right side, and on the Italiante on the right side. Those windows were actually set back a foot. Page 36 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL I�.rIEW COMMISSION `�rr'' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Vuksic said it was fine if it is, but in the floor plan for bedroom number three, which is part of the front elevation, and he sees a 2 x 6 wall. Mr. Schletter said it was a standard 2 x 4 wall. Commissioner Vuksic thought that plan needed to be thicker as well because that was part of the front elevation. Mr. Schletter said the reason they didn't do that is because when they look at the front elevation, they wanted to create one featured element. Having that gable end with the inset window and the shutter created that element for the front of the house. If they did it to all of the windows, they would lose all the character that they were trying to achieve on the house. Commissioner Vuksic disagreed. He could see that they would want to feature that but he didn't think doing nothing to the other windows was a good argument because it looked like this was their token enhanced window and the rest was going to be as basic as they could make it. Mr. Schletter said it was completely basic; it does have trim on it, it does have a pot shelf on it, most cases it has shutters on it, but not all cases because not all cases would require shutters. Looking at a Spanish house, it has shutters, it has trim on it. For the Spanish architecture, what they are trying to create is the sense that these are thick walls that were built differently, like adobe and thick and gives them the opportunity to recess the windows. They kind of kill that effect when they have one that is obviously a thin wall and then all of a sudden they realize it is all a sham. He thought it all needed to look like it was built that way, even if they went ahead and really did up the gable one and made that one really special, the other ones still need to be thick. Mr. Fisher stated that in his opening remarks he indicated there has been a major shift in this market. A lot of things they would have done four or five years ago they can't afford to do any more. The price points today in the market will not support it. They were talking a lot of expense when they start doing big walls. If they do that on three or four windows, they've added a significant amount to the square footage price of that home. So they were trying to balance the elevation curb appeal with what the market will support right now. They did that on the one on this particular gable end because that does give them the pop they are looking for, but they Page 37 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE`bw�W COMMISSION vw+" " MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 didn't do an inset for a variety of reasons and Mr. Schletter indicated one was an architectural revaluation he made, but another one, probably a bigger one, was the cost factor. They were trying to keep the cost reasonable and still find a market. They thought they found a market and they thought these homes, given what they have done to them at this point, that market will support this. But if they start adding these other items, then they were in a difficult situation. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that they were talking about a 12-foot piece of wall. Mr. Fisher replied that it is a double wall and it adds cost to the house. Commissioner Van Vliet said it couldn't add that much cost. Mr. Fisher said the changes they've made added up. Commissioner Van Vliet indicated that they were saving a lot of money on the rest of the building as they go around it. He figured with trim around the windows and doors they've certainly saved in those areas. Commissioner Vuksic appreciated what he was saying, and felt bad they had spent this long talking about it because it seems like a fairly minor thing. Mr. Schletter said that they want to put the feature window. Other windows on the front elevation, if they went half of that distance or even so much as to do a 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 wall where that window is and inset the window into that, so they would still get the shadow effect, just not as deep, would he have any objections to that. Commissioner Vuksic said he would be okay there with a 2 x 8 wall because that would give them the effect that this wall is built differently. It's going to be an adobe wall and will allow them to offset the gable window like they want. Mr. Schletter said on the front elevation, he didn't have an issue probably doing that. Commissioner Vuksic said that's all they were talking about is that front elevation. Page 38 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL F�rIEW COMMISSION �++' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Lambell asked about an eave on the Italianate or the Tuscan. Mr. Schletter said that was a question he had. If it is under a porch, like in the 1,991 plan where that window falls under a porch, that wouldn't be necessary. Commissioner Vuksic agreed because they had some good layering going on there and they wouldn't really pick up on that. Commissioner Levin asked when they add the third-car garage, if they are moving all the utilities over to that wall and back farther. Mr. Schletter confirmed they go to the furthest outside wall. Commissioner Levin pointed out the location differences and said that the utilities are even farther back. On the 1,991, the utilities weren't shown on that house. Mr. Schletter confirmed that they just weren't shown on that one. Commissioner Stendell noted that on all of the three-car elevations, it shows some relief in dimension from the main garage door to the second one, but all of the floor plans show all of them being on the same parallel plane. One of the things they spoke previously about was that they were all so flat in elevation across the front. The needs for storage for growing families was bigger and he thought the three-car garage was a great idea, but it gave them an opportunity to give some relief to it. He knew that every corner cost money in building tract homes, but what Commissioner Vuksic was suggesting, there was nothing wrong with building that out of a 2 x 8 wall. They still had their two basic corners, they just had to deal with a little bit of dimensional lumber and it could give it some good punch. It may not be as deep as the other one, but would give them the continuous feel all the way around. He had shown it in a couple of places, but just needed a little more. Mr. Schletter said he had no problem with that. Commissioner Stendell thought on the floor plans he needed to show the third-car garages set back. The other thing was utility trenching is by the foot. That's why they put them on the front corner of the house. They could ask that they go back a little bit further and create a little bit of a wall like a maze like they do in larger custom homes where the utilities can sit there and be unseen and have a maze type fence with the utilities in Page 39 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�`W COMMISSION '� MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 between an area that kind of shields that look. It would cost them a little bit more to dig it back a few feet, but it could really make a street scene without those utilities there. Commissioner Lambell concurred with Commissioner Vuksic to require a 2 x 8 wall, and they were only talking about only one additional window on the street scene. Vice Chair Van Vliet had a question about the trim as they go around the sides and to the rear of the buildings it looked like it was a nail-on trim. He asked if that was a piece of pressboard, or some other material. Mr. Schletter asked if he meant the fascia board. Vice Chair Van Vliet said no, the trim around the window. Mr. Schletter said the trim around the window was 2-inch thick foam with stucco over it and painted. He confirmed it would be painted a different color or accent color. Commissioner Lambell asked if this was preliminary approval. Mr. Swartz said it was preliminary approval, unless it was something they wanted continued to have them come back with the drawings or if they wanted to wait and see the changes on the construction drawings. Mr. Fisher was looking for approval today so they could submit cd's and would make the changes on the cd's. Mr. Swartz said they could condition it through the working drawings. Commissioner Vuksic thought what they had said was pretty cut and dried. Mr. Fisher reiterated that he didn't have a problem with the 2 x 8. Mr. Bagato said they also needed landscaping. They needed to make sure that the landscaping was approved prior to building permits. Action It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Levin, granting preliminary approval with the comments as conditions of approval to be reviewed at the working drawing stage. The motion carried 5-0-2 with Chairman Gregory and Commissioner Touschner abstaining. Page 40 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�9wlEW COMMISSION �..r+� MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Lambell announced that she was leaving. VICE CHAIR VAN VLIET CALLED A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AT 2:37 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 2:42 P.M. 2. CASE NO: PP 10-74 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA, 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a kitchen building, and overflow parking lot expansion. LOCATION: 38-995 Desert Willow Drive (Desert Willow Golf Resort) ZONE: PR-5 Ms. Missy Grisa explained that the kitchen expansion was happening on the east side of the building. When they last met they discussed the terrace and this was the other part of the project. The current project involved moving the existing restroom and expanding it into two separate restrooms with shower facilities for employees, as well as providing a larger break room to accommodate all Desert Willow employees; adding a new reception area/entry feature for the banquet room, and a storage area for necessities associated with banquet services such as china and glassware; and some offices were being removed and relocated to allow for the bar to be moved to the back wall allowing for a longer bar service area and expanded dining area. At the last meeting, ARC said they would like to see a stronger entry feature coming into that side entry, similar to the front side with the canopy coming out. Ms. Grisa noted that there is a trellis feature that comes over the sidewalk and they were also changing the paving patterns in the ADA accessible areas and would be expanded to the sidewalk. It was currently asphalt. - Ms. Grisa stated that as far as the parking lot, they were adding 243 extra spots in a semi-permanent parking lot. Right now it was temporary / semi- permanent, meaning that they are unaware of what will happen with this parcel �s a whole in the future, so if some sort of hotel use came in, they might look at revising this area again. Included are parking lot lights with a pole height of 15 feet tall, and they would be using LED lighting on that wall. As well, a landscape plan was included which provided for minimal Page 41 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�'W COMMISSION "�' ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 landscaping since they foresee peopie walking through this area and wished to avoid plants being trampled. The existing split-rail fencing around the site would be reused. The architect put together a visual tour of the exterior of the building. The Commission had expressed concern with the overall architectural style and features, and there was a tower element they wanted lowered. The landscaping received preliminary approval for the terrace expansion and the kitchen addition. Redevelopment Manager Martin Alvarez thanked the Architectural Review Commission for their comments when they came forward with a concept plan. He thought the comments were very valuable and allowed for improvement. They certainly did not want this seen as an addition and wanted it to blend in and to really match the architecture of the existing building. So they really took a hard look at all the features and elements and they felt they were able to accomplish having a secondary access that really blends in with the entrance and existing architecture, yet give it an accent that here is another prominent entrance that will help serve banquets and as a secondary access. He informed the Commission that Mark Melzer of MDR, their architect, was present and he prepared some massing of perspectives and kind of a model that they could go through. If there were any questions, they would try and answer them. In terms of the parking lot, they talked about semi-permanent, but it is really a permanent parking lot. He explained that the Redevelopment Agency has about 10-15 acres to the south of this that will hopefully at some point be either timeshare or a hotel, so they wanted to leave some flexibility in this plan that if they need to move some planters or they need to move some drive aisles, they were able to allow for access points to that parcel. But the primary function would be as a parking lot for the clubhouse. He asked for any questions, reiterating that staff and the architect were present to answer any questions. Referring to a picture looking east, Commissioner Levin said it looked like they were stair-stepping the turf areas there. Commissioner Levin also noted that they were cutting back on the fire access around the east side of the building and asked if the Fire Marshal had reviewed the plan; with the expanded building, he was concerned about the Fire Department's ability to reach around the back of the building and that was the location of the fire access road. Mr. Alvarez said the green area seen there was really just representative because they would actually have the terrace they are building there as well wrapping around the entire stretch of the Page 42 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL R�rrIEW COMMISSION °�' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 building on that corner. But to his point on the fire access, they have worked with Neal Stephenson in the Fire Department. They were basically taking that fire lane, which is actually turf blocked, moving the fire hydrant back maybe 20 feet, and Mr. Stephenson deemed it acceptable to fight fires from that location. Mr. Alvarez asked if they would like to go through the model perspective briefly. Commission said yes. MR. MARK MELZER, with MDF Architects, said they did the sketch-up model without landscaping. The purpose of the study was because they took the comment very literally that this is an expansion, so they worked with the existing architecture, which is a very strong architecture. They didn't want to impose any new vocabulary to the building so what they did was look at the entire building holistically and they started from the west side and looked at some of the stronger elements on the west side. The element on the west side was the entrance to the snack bar area. It has a very prominent roof with a wood soffit. They liked that vocabulary and . that element for the other side of the building, which is the expanded side for the banquet entry. They wanted to balance the building and did not want to compete with the main entry. The main entry has a valet drop-off and they couldn't generate that on the new entry because of the limited space for dropping off people, so they did the best that they could. They actually eliminated the parking spaces that they had to walk through in the earlier scheme and did the best they could with the drop off area. He started with the east side and moved around the building. He showed the existing Palm Desert Room and the new addition feature which he said takes the same roof element, same slope and same fascia. It's a little wider, a little stouter, but they have incorporated those elements. As they sweep around, they introduced a trellis element which has a canopy of trees on both sides of it. He said the purpose of that is they really want to up-light that at night and make it more of a feature which is not going to compete with the main entry and then from the parking Iot side they have the same portal that they kind of have today. They made it a little more linear to keep the horizontality of the building intact and they thought at night it would be a wonderful, low-key entrance to walk through and to exit after a banquet. He showed the service area; they tried to mass the fa�ade, but in modeling the building, the purpose of the model was to show them the seamlessness of the addition. That's what they had striven for. Page 43 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Architecturally, Mr. Melzer said they wanted to stay loyal to the existing vocabulary and that was the purpose of this massing model. It was just a sketch-up model, so they didn't show all the windows and every mullion, it was to show them the massing, how the roof works and the fatter columns. He thought they stayed very literal to what is there today. For the materials board, there really wasn't one other than an exhibit which says they will match the materials on the existing building. And they tried to explain the rationale in terms of the vocabulary. Ms. Grisa thought the model and existing photos really helped. She said she visited Desert Willow several times and didn't really see those uplifting portions of the cantilevered roof, but when you see the pictures, they are there. She asked for one point of clarification. On the sketch-up model, it looked like there was glass over the canopy and asked if that was something they were including. Mr. Melzer explained that what they would like to do on the trellis element, between the trellis members, is actually have a fabric or use perforated metal. They wanted it to be very light and airy to allow light to filter through. Firstly, he would like to see fabric there to give a punch of color and kind of give it a little lightness as they walk under it. That had yet to be really designed and solidified, but in the model it does look like glass. It wasn't meant to be glass. Ms. Grisa asked if the canopy on the terrace expansion is perforated metal. Mr. Alvarez confirmed that it was perforated metal. Ms. Grisa asked if that would be an opportunity to tie that side into it. Mr. Melzer confirmed it would be. It was just a question of whether the perforated metal has any punch to it or any real character to it. To them it was safe to do it for this solution here, but they liked the idea of having something with a little twist to it or a little bit of whimsy. Commissioner Levin noted that they were finally going to punch through the existing parking lot so when it's full, visitors won't have to drive out and go all the way around. Page 44 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�.rIEW COMMISSION �..r' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Vuksic thought it was a beautiful design. The view from the northeast corner looking back toward the building where they see several of those roofs jutting out including the new addition looked fantastic. Mr. Melzer said one thing they are really thrilled about is as they come through the trellis area, they arrive on a porch and that porch gives that fantastic view to the golf course, and then they turn and go into the banquet facility from there. He thought the porch idea was pretty successful and they do want the canopy of trees to kind of embrace them and then the porch would unfold as they come through it. He noted that RGA is the landscape architect and they are going to recycle most of the trees, so they were being reused. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked for additional Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vuksic said good job. Commissioner Levin noted that Commissioner Touschner brought up trying to get some ambient exterior light into the office area. When they last met, the applicant wasn't sure if that would be feasible. He asked if they were able to include ambient office light. Mr. Melzer said they didn't quite pick up on that, it was in the earty report, but they could certainly do it either with clerestory glass in the private offices that lets light kick into the bullpen area, or they could do it with a solar tube. Either way was fine. He thought they just wanted to make sure they get all of their mechanical on top of this roof. But ARC's point is taken; they should kick some natural light into that bullpen space for the workers. Vice Chair Van Vliet asked for a motion of approval. Action It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Levin, granting preliminary approval. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Chairman Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items None. Page 45 of 47 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION � ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 V. COMMENTS A. Commissioner Levin recalled that the Commission discussed not receiving big plans in their packets, but he wondered how the Commission felt about plans being made available online, perhaps somewhere on the City's website, so if they wanted, they could see plans in a larger format; some of the plans were difficult to read. Mr. Bagato said staff has electronic versions as part of the applications, if anyone wanted them. Commissioner Levin said they talked about staff giving them compact discs, but thought it would be nice on the website. Mr. Bagato thought if the Commission wanted them electronically, the planner for the case could email it to anyone who wanted it. Vice Chair Van Vliet noted there was a lot of detail, but as one example he didn't think they needed all the information provided for the K.B. Home project. Commissioner Touschner thought there was no reason it couldn't have been double sided. Commissioner Levin said if there was something he couldn't read, he would have staff email it to him. B. Commissioner Touschner had a comment about the signage package for EI Paseo Village. Part of the problem with that is, and her fear is when they come back and they want to add stuff to the back of the building, everybody is only going to bring their project individually, and it was a whole elevation, a series of five or six buildings that were really together. She didn't know if staff wanted to ask them to do it, or maybe they could just have a couple of photographs of what the existing building looks like. Best Buy was a great example. ARC approved something on those drawings and she happened to drive by it the next night. That did not match what they were told. And she was sure the person thought what they were saying was the right thing, but it wasn't at all what was out there. It was just because there weren't any pictures. They were doing the best that they could to remember what their neighbor was, but that really wasn't what was there. That was her caution; that they need to have a picture of what is there when they review these. Mr. Bagato said he would talk to the representative. The point of the sign program was to not have every tenant come back in anyway. He thought they should design the back now, anticipate how many tenants will be back there, and then they could do the line-of-sight study and have it all anticipated. Page 46 of 47 � ARCHITECTURAL F�,.rIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 23, 2010 Commissioner Stendell asked if during the approval of that whole process and the re-approval from two-stories to single story, the Council had to have gone through that. Mr. Bagato replied that they didn't review signage. Commissioner Touschner thought he was right. See the whole elevation and identify the five or six places where signage will be allowed and then they are done. If something fits outside of it, then they have to return to ARC. Commissioner Lambell agreed. Chairman Gregory said good luck, because they would have different corporate logos and stuff, but so long as they follow the framework. Commissioner Stendell suggested that maybe the City should dictates a little bit stronger the element. The front of Janie and Jack was a trademark for them, but who says that's what it has to look like on the back. The point is Banana Republic is just trying to have that name recognition on the back of the building somehow; and just keep it a little simpler. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Stendell, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 6-0-0-0 (Commissioner Lambell was absent). ��_____--- TONY B GATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER Page 47 of 47 �rr' v� '