Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-28 aw MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. The meeting was called to order at 2:35 P.M. after a 2 hour study session. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Johnson Phyllis Jackson Bernie Leung Vern Barton Rick Holden Al Cook Charles Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Stan Sawa Murrel Crump The Board reviewed the minutes of August 7, 1979. On Case No. 375SA, the Board modified revision nos. 1 and 2. No. 1 was changed to read as follows: If the sign is moved to the north, the height from the bottom of the sign to finished grade of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 5 ft. Revision no. 2 was modified to read as follows: The sign may be moved to the north so it is located between parking spaces. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Leung, to approve the minutes of August 7, 1979, as amended above; carried 4-0-4 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON WITH HOLDEN, COOK AND MARTIN ABSTAINING) . IT. Minute motion approving cases found acceptable at the Design Review Board session - None. III. CASES: Case No. 75MF (Tract 5565, Phase 4 and 5) - Ironwood Country Club, 0 Woodward Dike - Final landscaping plans for Phase 4 and 5 which are presently under construction; applicant was present. Staff indicated three changes which the Board approved this item subject to the following revisions: 1. Delete T-10 and replace with Pinus Mondell . 2. Delete use of Eucalyptus between buildings and replace with Bottle Tree. 3. Utilize dwarf citrus trees in unit patio locations. Carried 7-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN) It was also suggested by Mr. Johnson that the applicants utilize as much grass as possible in areas where ground cover is presently indicated. This would ease maintenance of the landscaped areas. Case No. 72C (Amended) - Robert Ricciardi , AIA - Approval of men meet to allow patio wall for building under construction; applicant was present. Staff discussed the problems associated with the construction of the proposed fence as formulated by the Design Review Board during study session. The Board felt that because of the lack of protection from cars backing up, extreme sun exposure, loss of landscaping, and poor aesthetic appeal , that the request was not acceptable. Nor Nmo MINUTES Page Two DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 On a motion by Barton, seconded by Johnson, the Board denied this request. Carried 7-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, AND MARTIN) . Case No. 375SA (Amendment)- Lyndale Manor and Perry Waite - mendment to approve modification to freestanding sign for commercial building; applicant was present. The background which lead to the erection of the sign as it presently exists was reviewed by Staff. Applicant stated that they wished to leave the sign in its present location and raise it to 10 ft. Mr. Leung discussed the alternative of mounting a sign on the wall and removing the freestanding sign. The Board discussed the possible alternatives to signage for the building. On a motion by Barton, seconded by Holden, the Board approved a modification of this item, subject to the following revisions: 1. The sign may be raised so that the distance between finished grade of the subject parking lot and bottom of the sign is 5 ft. 2. Oleanders shall be densely planted beneath the sign to create a monument look to the base of the sign. Carried 5-1-1 (JACKSON, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN WITH JOHNSON VOTING NO AND LEUNG ABSTAINING) . Case No. 114C - John Outcault, Architect for Donald Lawrenz - Final working plans for two story commercial building; applicant was present. The Board studied the submitted plans during study session and felt that the working drawings as submitted were acceptable. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Cook, the Board approved this item as submitted. Carried 6-0-1 (JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN WITH JOHNSON ABSTAINING) . Case No. 117C - Dr. Gary Lyons, John Outcault, Architect - The final working plans for furniture building; applicant was present. The Board discussed Condition No. 9 which the applicant wished deleted at this time. The Board felt the deletion of the wood siding at the bottom of the windows was acceptable. On a motion by Barton, seconded by Leung, the Board moved to approve this item as submitted. Carried 6-0-1 (JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN WITH JOHNSON ABSTAINING) . Case No. 118C - Keith A. Suchow and Stephen C. Sigler - Approval of preliminary plans for exterior remodeling of an existing motor inn; applicant was present. Mr. Martin indicated that he would abstain from this item because of a previous involvement with the property. The Board discussed the mansard and concept of its design with the applicants. Mr. Johnson indicated that he felt a solid mansard roof is desirable. Mr. Leung felt that the mansard should be more substantially designed because of the extreme weather conditions in this area. "err r✓ MINUTES Page Three DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 The question of signage for the motor inn was discussed extensively. Applicant indicated that they wished to keep the existing signs. The non-conformance of their existing signs and desire of the City to bring the signs into conformance with the present Sign Ordinance was in- dicated by Staff. Alternatives to removing all signs was discussed with no answer formulated. Alternatives for approving and/or denying this request were discussed. The Board generally felt that the dis- position of this signage was an important factor and would influence the exterior remodeling. After extensive discussion, it was determined that applicant should file a Planning Commission application to determine the disposition of a Sign Program for the building prior to con- sideration of any exterior remodeling. It was determined that the proper procedure at this time would be to deny this request and reconsider a new request after Planning Commission action on the Sign Program. On a motion by Cook, seconded by Holden, the Board denied this request. Carried 6-0-1 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, WITH MARTIN ABSTAINING) . Case No. 169MF (DP 01-79) - Dame-Doty Development Company - Preliminary and Final approval for maintenance building in Chaparral Country Club; applicant was present. The Board discussed the additional driveway access requested by the applicant. Additionally the use and adequacy of the maintenance building for the project was discussed. Applicant felt that the size of the maintenance area was adequate for the project. The necessity for increasing the setback adjacent to the northerly property line was discussed by the Board who ultimately decided that the plan as drawn with a 5 ft. set- back was adequate. Mr. Crump clarified the procedure for obtaining approval of the extra driveway to Portola Avenue. Mr. Crump explained that Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the Development Plan was necessary. After reviewing submitted plans, the Board felt that the plan as submitted was adequate with the exception of the driveway which requires Planning Commission approval . On a motion by Holden, seconded by Johnson, the Board approved this item as submitted with the exception of the driveway which requires Planning Commission approval . Carried 6-1 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN WITH LEUNG VOTING NO). Mr. Barton left at this point in the meeting. Case No. 183MF (DP 03-79) - James E. Kaul Development - Approval of preliminary plans for 36 unit condominium project; applicant was present. Staff reviewed the changes formulated by the Design Review Board during the study session. Changes pertained to landscaping architecture of the units, relocation of the pool and tennis courts, and provision for additional guest parking. Mr. Crump presented a background on the case indicating that blowsand con- sideration and emergency access to the east or west were issues unresolved as of Planning Commission approval . MINUTES Page Four DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 Applicant indicated that he had recently reached an agreement with the property owner to the east to provide emergency access between the properties. However, how this access is to be provided has not been finalized. Applicant additionally stated that he may be able to obtain permission to landscape on the westerly side of the property for blowsand protection. Along Country Club Drive it was determined that a combination of alternates "A" and "B" for blowsand protection should be implemented. The Board also discussed the provisions for guest parking. It was felt that the dispersion of the guest parking was not adequate for the units near the front of the site. On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Leung, the Board moved to continue this item to the meeting of September 25, 1979 in order to allow the applicant to restudy his plans considering the following items: 1. Provide landscaping plan at larger scale and show how blowsand protection will be provided on north and westerly elevations. 2. Restudy elevations in order to provide compatibility among duplex units, sun protection along easterly and westerly exposures and architectural treatment without the extensive use of wood. 3. Show how emergency access will be provided to east. 4. Consider additional guest parking in front portion of project if feasible. 5. Reverse location of pool and tennis court. 6. Show 6 ft. decorative wall around perimeter of project with said wall along Country Club Drive designed to be aesthetically attractive. 7. Show adequate trash enclosures spread throughout the site or submit letter indicating that individual trash cans will be picked up by disposal company; drawings to indicate provision for storage of individual trash cans if utilized. 8. On "A" units show patios enclosed at rear of structure. 9. On all units, swing pedestrian doors that are in garage so that doors swing into residences and do not encroach into garage area. 10. Comply with all conditions of DP 03-79 and Tentative Tract 14805. 11. Seek Public Works Director approval of design detail for project entrance on Country Club Drive prior to resubmission of plans. 14W MINUTES Page Five DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 12. Provide for 20 ft. wide pedestrian easement along Country Club Drive; said easement to be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Provide 8 ft. wide meandering bike/pedestrian path along Country Club Drive as required by Director of Environmental Services. Carried 6-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN) . Case No. 177MF - C. R. S. Development Company - Approval of final working drawings for seven single family residences; applicant was not present. As an oral item Staff presented the final working drawings for seven single family residences on Candlewood Drive. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Johnson, the Board approved this item. Carried 6-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN) . Comerfords - Preliminary and Final approval of plans for garden entry; applicant was present. The Board indicated that they would like to see a garden enclosure designed by the original architect for the building. It was hoped that through this procedure, a garden enclosure which will be architectually compatible with the building can be achieved. The Board also in- structed the applicant to check the private deed restric- tions to insure that the garden entry did not encroach into the non-buildable area. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Jackson, the Board continued this item until September 25, 1979 with the applicant to contact the original architect and to provide plans which will be architectually compatible with the existing building. Carried 6-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN) . IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. DP 09-79:Request for approval of a Planned Residential Development to allow 1100 dwelling units. The Board felt additional street access should be provided possibly on Frank Sinatra Drive. 2. DP 10-79: Request for approval of a Planned Residential Development to allow 116 dwelling units. The Board had no specific comments regarding this project. 3. DP 11-79: Request for approval of a Planned Residential Development to allow 22 dwelling units. The Board had no specific comments regarding this project. 'ter 1%01 MINUTES Page Six DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 IV. (Continued) 4. CUP 05-79: Request for approval of a 36 unit Planned Residential Development. The Board had no specific comments regarding this project. V. ADJOURNMENT: 5:40 P.M. ko"E, Lawa' STAN SAWA, Associate Planner