The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-01-08 / fu � ,�. ' �. . . � ' . � � ��' � , . ti' ,l ' . - ; . ' � . \ � � CITY OF PALM DESERT . � . . � , . . , � �� . . , ...,,5.�_ . m.... .r, _.�_ -,`�iY,,,ti. � � � . ' � A CHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION� � � .� - � � - ��• � � M I IV UTES � � � , . . , , JANUARY 8, 2019 � , , , . ; .: , . I. . CALL TO ORDER , ' � � . r ' . - The meeting was called to order at 12:30 pom. ,� . , � . � � , �- II. ROLL CALL . �1 � � � . . � , . � Cornmissioners � Current Meetin Year to Date � g . Present � Absent Present Absent Chris Van Vliet, Chair - X � 1 . , Karel Lambell, Vice Chair ' � X 1 � Allan Levin � � , � X , 1 . Michael McAuliffe � X � _ 1 � r , Jim Mclntosh � X � � 1 � John Vuksic �� ` X � � � , , 1 - Open Position � � ,� . . ; , Also Present � . . � . � Eric Ceja, Principal Planrier � � � , , � .� � Kevin Swartz, Associate F'lanner � � . Christina Canales, Assistant En ineer - � . g . Janine Judy, Recording Secretary � � . Cancelled meeting:2/27/18,4/10/18,12/11/18,12/25/18 . IlI.� � ORAL COMMUNICATI4NS � . � � � _ .� None , � � . IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 11, 2018 and November 27 201� . , � �Action: . � . , - Commissioner Levin moved�to approve�tfie November 119 201� meetin � . � . . . . . . g . _ . minutes ��with minor changes. Motion was secon�ed by Commissioner � � McAuliffe and carried by � a .5-1 vote, ,with Lambell,. Levin,� McAul.iffe � � , � Mclntosh, and Van Vi�iet voting�YES and Vuksic absento . . , , ._ , , . , � � - • J � ARCHITECTURAL RE�-��_�,_-,_V COMMISSION � �� - � � MINUTES � . . . January 8, 2019 0 . � . � Action: � �� Commissioner�Levin. moved to approve the November 27 2018 mee ' � � 9 ting minutes with minor changese Motion was seconded �b Corr�missioner . . . Y , rr McAuliffe and carried by a 5�-1 ,vote, with Lambell, Levin,� 1VIcAuliffe , � Mcintosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. � . . V. CASES: . ..._.. . .. , � A. Final Drawings: � � , . � - _ , � None � � � B. Preliminary Plans: - , 1. CAS E IV O: M 1 S.0 18-0026 � . � . __ � �APPLICANT AND�ADDRESS : SHIELD�S.RESIDENTIAL 73-0 , •• . - SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 . , , � . � NATURE OF PR4JECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:. C�onsideration to . � deny modification of an existing wood fence. LOCATIOIV: 74-855 Fairwa Drive � � � v , . �: �� ,� ZONE: R-1 . . . . - . �:� :��- . _ _ �� . Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, resented �a re uest to den a p a Y modification to an existing wood fencee Back �in 2005, the � Architectural Review Commission approved the ori inal wood fence � • • . . . g at this location. At that time, the Commission approved a weave ` � � design since solid wood fencing was not allowedo Currentl the home � . . . . , v - is being rerr�odeled with a pool in the back and for safety reasons � � � they tore dorivn the ori inal fence and re laced it with a no � ' g p r n permitted _ wood fence. The contractor was unaware that a fence ermit was . . . p required b.y the City. Code Enforcement and Building and Safety � �� perform�ed a site inspection and told the applicant a wood fence was . � � � only allowed if it, was rebuilt using the same materials and�desi� n. l g +, � _ Mr. Swartz presented photos of the new fence, as well as photos of I . � thepprevious fience. He said the new fence has a weave design but � � �the slats go all�the way across instead of dying into the post. He said . � the fence is in the same location at the�sarne height, ho�nrever it is now considered a new wood fence and will need an exce tion from p . , : the Commission. The appl�icant, prior to this meeting, rr�et with Mr. G:\Planning\Janine JudyWRC\1 Minutes�2019\1�8�19min.do�X Page 2 of 11 � . . . � �'yi � ARCHITECI'IJRAL�RI��.m �_,;EW COMMISSI4N �-�=' � MIIVUTES �� Januar 8 2019 . . . v , , , , _ . , . � Swartz and the�Community Development Director, R an Stendell � . , . Y , . � who inforrned hirr� he should have rebuilt the exact same fence using , . . n�ew wo o d. � � MR. STEVE SHIELDS,�Shieid's Residential said he understands the , � . reason fornot approving wood fences and exp.lained that since man � Y � � . cities do not require a perr°nit, he didn't think t.o ask permission to tear ��a rotten fence down and rebusld it. He ointed out that the fence is in p the exact same footprint. He said he has done this exact sarr�e fence � multiple #imes in other cities,because it adds a .lot of ood elements � . g of warmth and color and it is also pool compliant. He mentioned that . , . , this home vvill be featured durin Modernism Week on the Si nature - . g g . � . _ Home Tour in Palm Desert, and staff told him this�could be done as � originally approved by the Commission. He said the new fence has - . , �� a weave design similar to the design in 2005 and the only difference between the original design and the new design is that it dies into the . post. He described how the fence was constructed to a ear the � pp , � � � same as the o.ne that was originally approved. He believes that not � only does it fulfill the�,general feel of the fence a � roved in 2005 �but � � . . . . , , pp , it is buil.t in such a way to,fulfill the City's goal of not having fences , , , - �. fall�down after a�few years and needin re airs. In reference to the . g p � . color,�.he suggestion a dark color that will essentially match the � � treated p,osts. This fence will blend into the landscape and provide � � privacy for his client. He said he would also be addin a ate in g g . � between the house and the pool to be compliant. �� . � . � , . � � . Commissioner 11/Iclntosh reviewed the hotos and ointed ou . p p t that the slats weren't dying into the post and said there was a ca over ._ p - . th�em. He ur�derstands that the contractor is buildin a ood ualit � g g q Y � fence butthere is a reason forthe ordinance and that is forthe sim le . Y . , p � � reason that wood rots and said�even the contractor mentioned that � � the previous fence was rotted after only 13 years old. He explained . , that in this environment wood '�fences just don't last and the start � . . � • . . . . . . y . � , , looking bad very quickly and this Commission is trying to�phase them � . out of the co:mmunity because of that fact.�1/Vood fences require , frequent- maintenance which never gets done and therefore the . . overall appea,rance in the community doesn't look good compared to � a masonry or stucco wall that has the endurance and doesn't require � � � a lot of maintenance. He said in, good conscience he wouldn't � , recommend an�exceptione� � . . . . C . � . . . . , G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\1-8-19min.docx, Page 3 of 11 � � , � �� - . . ' ARCHII'ECTIJRAL RE1��:��._-,�_'N C�MMISSI � � �� , O N. .�_�.� MINIJTES � � : , � . . January 8, 2019 , , � - � . ;-, , , Commissioner Mclntosh and MRe SHIELDS contin ' � . ued to discuss the � posts, finished nails and�the mair�tenance re uired of.wood fences. . q , � They also discussed the gate that is needed for the� oo�l..MR. Shields o . . , . p . said it would.be architecturally corr,patible and allow rotection of the , . . , p . pool without hav�ng a pool fence since the entire envelo e ofthe ard � , . . p Y _ � . _ doesn t need to be protected frorr� pool access. Commissioner Mcintosh re�tated his position and,,said the fence didn't have architectural significance to make an exc�e tion�. � p, � Chair Van Vliet and MR. SHIELDS discussed the hei ht of the _ . . . , g ;original 6 fence and how the .grade slopes up to�it. Chair Van Vliet said that he also has a problerrl ,with the fence because there �' is �. obvious reasons why wood material is prohibited and should be � masonry. They discussed the setback off the curb bein onl 13' and . . . , �� . g Y , Chair Van Vl�et said typically a 6' fence would be�20'. He ointed out � o . . p that the contractor t�ore down the or�ginal fence and basicall started � � . . . . y from scratch by redesigning it�. Commissioner Lambell a reed and . . . ,. . g said the applicant was given the option to repair what was broken � and that would have been fine but he decided to use new materials � and redesigned the fence. � � � . � � MR. SHIELDS said it is his understandin that the owner back in � . . , g - � 2005 argued that the original wood fence was in com liance with due . , . . p, to the lot and house being historical so the committee at the time � �approved it based on this information. The Commissioners ex lained � . . _ , .. . , p that the nevu fence is no longer ir� compliance because it has a new � design and new material. � � . > MR. SHIELDS continued to state his reasons for redes' ' ` r igning the fence a�nd Commissioner Mclntosh said the zonin ordinance states . g � that a certain percentage can be reconstructed, however the ori inal g . fence .has been completely #orn down. Mr. Eric Ce'a, Princi al � � . . . , 1 p - Planner, explained that the City Council in 2015 was s m athetic to Y p . people who uvanted to replace an existing wood fence so the formed , . Y a Fence and Walls Corr�mittee who decided to approve fences with � a 50% replacement rule that turned out to be terrible idea. T � he . , Council .then amended the ordinance to allow replacement of an � , � existing wood fence in the exact sarr,e location usin the exact same � . . . . . g - design. He believes this is what vvas presented to Mr. Shields. Since , this is no longer the exact same desi n, that is wh this came before g Y. the Comrnis�ion. � � . . . ,. , . � ,, G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1Nlinutes�2019\1-8-19min.docx Page 4 of 11 � , - , . _ s, J . � ARCHlTECTURAL RE��, _,ry�-:V11`COIVIMISSION .�_,,�f� � �_ _ MINUTES , . , � Januar 8, 2019 � v . � ,� After further discussion, the Commission denied the re uest as � . - a . . presented. Corr�missioner Lambelf suggested that the applicant � . resubmit a design to meet the code. Commissioner IVicintosh said if - _ the applicant resubmits �the original design, he has to do alternatin g slats not lined up, and the spacing between the slats shall equal the � � �width of the panel, �nrith the same n�umber of panels. The Corr�mission � � directed the applicant to�either build the ori inal fence.with the same g . . � design, I�ocation9 and the same height or request a different materialo , , �� They also suggested he �submit a mock-up to staff for review. , � - .Action: ` . � �C�orrlmissioner Larnbell moved to den Case MI - � � � . y SC 1� 0026 as presented . ,. . subject to reconstructing the approved 2005 fence. IVlotion was seconded , by Commissioner Levin and carried 4-0-1�1 uvith Lambell, Levin, Mclntosh � , and Van Vliet voting YES �with Commis�sioner McAuliffe abstaining a�nd � � Commissioner Vuksic absent. � . . , _ . C. Miscellaneous Items: � , � � � , _ . . . . . . 1. APPLICANI' (AND ADDRESS): DARRYL MOORE Ae is Builders � g , . Inc., 22365 Barton Road, Suite 200, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 , �NATURE OF PR4JECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:.�Consideration to review architecture: of multi-family apartments and a self-storage _ _ � facility as part of the proposed Landmark.Specific Plan. . � LOCATIOIV: Dinah Shore Drive (adjacent to the Costco Sho in pp g . Center) � : Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate� Planner, resented a ro osal for a �� - p p p multi=family apartment building and self-storage facility for a� new . � .� � specific plan in the northern part of the cit located on Dinah. Shore v , - � Drive and IVlonterey Avenue. He presented a google ma of the site p . and presented a PowerPoint presentation �of the site plan. This specific plan will consist of retail, multi-famil a artments, and a self- Y p . . storage facility and pointed out that the self-storage will also serve ,, . � � -� as a buffer from the freeway. This p�roject is currently being reviewed . by,the�various City departments, but staff wanted to move this�alon . . . . . � � . g _ � to this Co�mmission to get some architectural feedback .and comments. On, the site plan, he pointed out the arcels for retail the � � p , � _ apartments and, the self-stora;ge facility. He stated that the apartments vvill be two-story�with a d,ensity of 30�units er acre. He , , p � , , . . � � . � , v G:1Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes12019\1-8-19min.docx Page 5 of 11� � , . , � � � � ARCHiTECI'URAL REV�,�r,__._��.V COIVIIVIISSION . � �`�__.: .-- � r � _ _ MINUTES � . � . .� . Januar 8 2 1 . . y , 0 9 � _ � .�.. . . ... ..�._,..-.4 ��f. � , PQ.��fi , 9i1''.t. . •.....��... •' ._ . . f _ ��y�r m:'� �A \ ' .' .? � . .��.Zy� � . . .��4 a�..�_:_. `�:.y=�. �..`.. � � stated that no�acti��oWr� wi�l�I be taken toda as this is bein ' . . t y g submitted for , comments and feedback only. � � � M R.,E DWARD B E IV N ET,�arch ite�ct, resented the tentative site {an '� _ p p � fo r 8.81 ac res th at v�ri I I h ave 20 two-sto _b u i I d i n s with 242 u n its vvith � rY g � 11 floor plansa 1Nithin the 20 buildings there will be 16 studios, 64 one-bedroom units, 82 two-bedroom units, and 80 three-be�droorr� � units: �There are six (6) building ty es and three 3 different p � ) . architectura�l styles; Tuscany, Spanish, and Modern. He presented "and described the buildin s, ods and units. I�/IS. NICOLE g p HANNOUCHE9 Architect, pointed out tha# all buildings will not be the sar°ne size; sorne will be smaller and �ome larger to create variation � � � to the site. The idea was not to keep just one or two architectural . styles together�but cluster the architectural st les in different areas . Y , � so as to feel rr�ore harmonious. MRe BENNET described the roof-and stated that there is a lot of variation in the st le of the roof and the Y � colors used. They then described the specific styles of architecture. , , < - , . . �The Commission and the architects discussed the street scene and � access to �the garages9 the tile. work on the pods, parkin on site, g � solar panels9 the six(6) buildin�.types and styles,faux wood material, � � � colors and accents,�the roof plan, the heights of-the ara ets and p p � � � the roof-mounted air conditioning units.�The Commission asked the � architects to r�nake sure that the equip�ment is totally screened so not to be'isible.from the public. MS. HANNOUCHE said the will ensure Y that the units are completely screened. The Commission suggested . . that the architects identify on the drawings the styles for each roof - plan. - , � Commissioner Lambell suggested more variation in plane change, . create more articulation, have deeper recesses on the windows to � ..s create shadows, identify change of plane rather than it becoming a . . � � _�_ . flat look, and ensurethatwhateverthe renderings are will match what , � the shadow line-�uvill beo Commissioner Mclntosh said to look at the , � fenestration and th�e depth. . � � � , � . , . . Commissioner Mclntosh said overall this is a reat ro'ect and looks . g p J . striking. Looking, at elevation A501 and flipping back to A201 he didn'# see the same relationships in the depth of the.,walls that he did ` in the elevationo He said it seems like it's almost exa erated a little gg in the elevations and �perspectives. He "and MSo HANNOUCHE discussed the virindow depth and the wall thickness as shown in the - , , � ' , . . �, C:\Planning\Janine Judy1ARC\1Minutes12019\1-S-19min.do�X Page 6 of 11 � � ,, . . � ARCHtTECTURAL R W COMMISSION � � �� ` �, . � , , . IVIINUTES Januar 8 2019 _ v , � . . � � � , renderin so He iiked the renderin s the d � . g . g. , epth and shadow, and - � , : wanted to make sure that this isn't just artistic license. � , � -_Commissioner Mcintosh and MS. HANIVOUCHE discussed window � � depth, recess�and breaking of the plane on the renderings submitted. � He asked about the other elevations and MS. HANNOIJCHE said ' . . they didn't submit every floor plan for eve elevation. She said the . . rY Y , � , only submitted � one floor plan reflecting one of�'the e�levations. � - . � Commissioner 11/Iclntosh suggested the rovide a com lete -and Yp p separate package for each model style.� � , �. � Commissioner Mclntosh suggested .they provide uick sections _ a � � � � through the�buildings to see the parapet on the roofs and equipment �. for all the units. Commissioner McAuliffe said it would also be . valuable to see that section actually cut t�hrou h the street rofile g p , because you can't tell from the presentation how close or how far � � apart the buildings actually are. , , , , Comm�ssioner Levin asked about the location for the trash and MR. - � DARRYL MOORE, developer, said individual trash w�ill be� icked u � , . p p � � � in �the alleys by Burrtec Waste. Commissioner Levin asked the . applicants to address utility and master meter �Iocations, electrical . - panels, fire sprinklers and meters, fire riser room, �detector checks - , � , \� fire hydra-nts, water meters,�and the location of the solar batte . MR. , rY • MOORE said they will work out these details before the next � . submittal. . � , , _ � � Corr,missioner McAuliffe referred to the side elevations on� the . -Contemporary or Modern version arid said the � have two vertical � Y . � � _ stacked windows and a flat plane and said they're probabi not oin . Y g g to fly. He asked them to look at four-sided architecture and said they certainly don't have to be as detailed as the front elevation but even � , � - � � � � the amount of detail they have on the�other two are two ste s above . p . what they have forthe Contemporary.,He said all of them are not that� � way, but there are a few with at least one blank wall and others with � just four windowsm�He asked them to a more attention to the sides. , . pY , . . . � , , � Commissioner McAuliffe said .this is a reat ro'ect and�that's wh g p 1 Y , this Commission is expressing co,ncern wi#h the utility things because� .he would hate to see�all�those eleventh�hour things come in and undo collectively their hard work. He said if they decide on as with . . . . , . . g individual meters, that s a Iot of ineters to address and it's too late to � , � G:\Planning\Janine JudyWRC\11V1inutes\2019\�1-8-19min.docx Page 7 of 1.1 /� �5� - , � ARCHITECTIJRAL REV�_�_ ._��1 COMMISSION � � _ ; _ -� , � MiNUTES � . � � Januar 8 2019 , Y � � deal with them in working drawings. Whatever decision it is rr�ake it . , u_pfront and address it well so that at the end of the day. what you are . , l presenting gets preserved. � . . � . The Commission and applicants discu�sed the location of the solar. � IVIS. HANNOUCH said they would be located on the outdoor arkin �, - , p g � structure and the buildings and stated they rNill not be visible�. � . , Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission was lookin at 'ust this g 1 , parcel or is this a representation of what is going in all the other ones. � � � MR. MOORE'said this basic con,cept r�vill be rolled out in the rest of � � the five (5) total parcels and will be�� develo ed this wa with some p Y . � � , minor variation. Mr. Swartz sai�d each parcel will come back under a � � . � � separate review process and a precise plan will be enacted for each . � , one as part of that package. � . � � . . , , ,, . - Mr. Swartz presented the plans for the self-stora e facilit that. will g Y , , wrap along Miriam Way�and the railroado �� !. . MR. BRUCE JORDAN, Jordan Architects, resented a slideshow p � . and said the whole concept was to place these buildings in such a � � way to offer screenin and an acoustic barrier for the a artments. In . g p � � orderto do that, theywrapped it around the outside to block freeway � � and train noise and provided an��-ample setback area for landsca e �� . . . , p screening. He pointed out the retention area, landscape strip, front . � elevation, rr�anagement offices,_ corporate offices on the second � floor, and the self-storage buildings. The will have a combination of � . Y � _ self-storage and internal motorhome storage, with covered canopies to cover all the spaces, an 8' h�igh, wrought-iron fence in the , landscape areas with heavy landscape scre.ening. He said they will � break up the long faces�on the buildings. He said the internal units will be clirr�ate controlled and� the outside will be conventional . . storage.�He��described the larger units that are sized for motorhomes � . , with a 14' wide modular with 12' wide doorso He said the track this . . . Y . , quite a bit world-wide and said the, multi-family and �single-family � ' - homes are bein restricted b� CCRs� which creates a stron demand g Y � g � � for RV storage. _ MR. �JO,RDAN presented, the ro�of pla�n and indicated the� roof-to � p � � mounted ,rr�echanicals and assured the Corr,mission they will be screened. He presented the layout of the offices and described the , security system throughout the facility vvith gated access. He said the . � . - - �, . � - . � . ; , G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1Minutes�2019\1-8-19min.do�X _ Page 8 of 11 . . � , , :' - . � Y ' -, i �� ARCHITECTl1RAL RE'�,,� :�,�>>N COMMISSlON � :w�_, �`�� , . � �F � ' MIIVUTES � � � � . January 8, 2019 � ; � maximum height of the units are 25' with a lot of stucco elerrients, � concrete block, �vith a colored and lightly sandblasted texture, vvith a - subtle desert feel and color scheme. ' MR. JORDAN pre�ented the landscape plan and pointed _out that � � they will have a lot of landscape� to buffer the �entire fa ade. . � � Commissioner Lambell stated that the City doesn't like to rely on landscape to define and articulate �the arch�itecture of the buildin . . g � , MR. JORDAN and Commissioner Lambell discussed the locations of � � landscape against the wrought-iron fencing since metal gets so��hot � _ in this environmenta Commissioner L�ambell referred to the southwest elevation and said this elevation will require ad_ditional I�andsca e p � buffering and would also be a great spot for Art in Public Places. � � Commissioner Lambell referred to�A20, the west elevation, and said � , she was concerned with the terra cotta surrounds and asked how far � � those stand proud from the rest ,of th�e buildin and MR. JORDAN � . g , said they did those in a block module�at 16" out. Chair�Van Vliet - � asked how�far they return ba_ck to the roof and MR. JORDAN said ,� they would return at least 4 to�5' so not to see the narrow end. He and the Cor°nmissioners discussed framing this element vriith block � � and Commissioner Lambell sug�gested they enclose this on all four �sides. MR. JORDAN said they will create taller volume and make it � - - � four-sided. � . � . - . The Comm�ssion and MR. JORDAN reviewed and discussed the � southwest elevation and addin r-nore articulation. g . � Commissioner McAuliffe referred to -the two spaced buildings on . A19, the southwest elevation, that.wil�l be adjacent to the apartments, � as well as covered outdoor storage between the buildings. He was � -� concerned vvith what would be visible from the 8' high wall and asked what will be parked under the awning.: MR. JORDAN said the wi_II Y � park motorhomes, boats, etc. Commissioner McAuliffe said they will � probably see a whole variety of different things stored there and . - � peaking over the top of the fence. MR. JORDAN said there is a 100' . � buffer there for the WQMP with a lot of separation, but will consider � � . running the�virall farther away. Commissioner McAuliffe asked them _ to provide irnages of covered s aces fior RVs, boats etce on the site p . , � , - map for the Commission to review. He said the break in the�building � is�a good idea and the canopy shown on the elevation is very clean, ' � , but the reality is when it is loaded. G:\PlanningWanine Judy�ARC\1 Minufies�2019�1-S-19min.ao�X Page 9 of 11 � . (j�� , � , _ � • ARCHITECTURAL RE1�=�.�,__.��,�IV COMMISSIO�N .-�_--�� . �.--.. f MINUTES , . Januar 8 201 . � y 9 � � . Chair Van Vliet and MR. J�RDAN discussed the roof-mou nted A/C , units and the height of the units and parapets. IVIF�. JORDAN said . � � they will;refine the plans as soon a� they have the HVAC e ui ment . q p . defined. Mr. Swartz explained that, after staff finishes their review of th' � is project, it will comeV back to the Commission for preliminary approval � and then move on to Planning Commission. � , Action: . � � � � � No action taken. Review onl o � - � . Y . � Mul#i-Familv_Apartmentso 1 submit se arate acka es� f ^ ) p p g or each . - � � architect.ural style (Spanish, Modern, Tuscan); 2) submit cros� sections thru � � � parapets on all units; 3) p�rovide sections for some buildin s and cut throu h g g . street. profiles (street sectio:ns); �4) address utility locations, trash, fire � rr�eters, electrical� panels, fire riser room, detector checks fire h drants � Y , water meters, etc., and also include solar battery location; 5} all architectural elements must be thick and not flat plans; 6) review all fo.ur sides� of� � architecture on each style;� 7) �subrnit roof lans and floor lans for all . . . . . p p . building�types; �8) submit elevations for the outdoor parking structures; 8 . . ) submit roof plans for solar features; 9)� make sure that the floor lans match , p the depth on the renderings in regards�to shadow�lines; 10) make sure the � right-of-way on the site plan rr�atches the right-of-way,on the ma � 56' ; 11 p � ) ) show the location of the secondary access for fire; 12) landsca e lan . p p needs to match site plan (plant palette, appropriate palms, better shade � trees); 13) look at narrowing the inner roads to 20'-24' instead of 28'�• 14� . . . - � ) include pedestrian connections to the future retail parcel; and 15) add as � much shade trees-as possible. � � . Self-Stora�e: 1) Iandsca e1shall not be utilized to define architecture• 2 . . , p , ) add more articulation to the southvvest elevation, 3) additional landscaping on � southwest elevation� to create a buffer; 4) consider Art in Public Places• 5 � . ' , � ) � enc lose surroun d on a l l four si des to increase volume; and, 6) provide . � images of covered s�aces.for_RVs,.,,boats, etc. on site map. �._ ,.._.. ... . . -n.. , 6-...:...,. :;,,,-iQ,��."` .. .. . , . .. � ..+„ VI. COMMENTS �� , , � . � � , � � None ; , ,. ' � , G:\PlanninglJanine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\i-S-l9min.do�X Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE�ieJV COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 2019 VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:45 p.m. � �� . ERIC CEJA � PRINCIPAL R SECRETARY . /� JAh1 N JUD DING SECRETARY c:�aia��m9��a�me��ay�aaaiM��cas�zo�s�i-e-ism��.aa�x Page 11 of 11