Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-24 T f MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 I. The meeting was called to order at 12:15 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meetine Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden(excused) X I I Frank Urrutia X 2 0 Chris Van Vliet X 2 0 Wayne Connor X 2 0 Richard O'Donnell X 2 0 Ronald Gregory X 2 0 Staff Present: Steve Smith Martin Alvarez Steve Buchanan Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1996 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Holden Absent. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: 4712 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for ESCADA SPORTS, 69 Pinyon Pines,Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage and lighting LOCATION: 73-111 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 INftw• MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Steve Smith presented the drawings for the proposed awning asking how far it would project out. The applicant, Ernie Brooks,replied that the awning would extend three feet and would be in the same color as the existing Dan Foxx awning. Commissioner Van Vliet questioned the height of the letters. Mr. Brooks indicated that they were 8" high. Action It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the signage as submitted. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Holden Absent. 2. CASE NO.: 4713 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for LA GOURMANDISE, 69 Pinyon Pines, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage LOCATION: 73-560 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented the drawings of the proposed awning indicating that the existing curved awning has faded and the applicant wants to replace it with the proposed red,white and blue retractable awning. Commissioner Gregory asked how the commission could approve the awning with the condition that it be retracted when the business is not open. Mr. Smith indicated that the condition would be difficult to enforce. The applicant, Ernie Brooks,reported that the awning would be cranked in every evening and that he informed his client that there would be no guarantee on the awning if it were left open at night. He added that the awning would extend 9'2" out and encroach on the public sidewalk by 5 feet. Commissioner Van Vliet questioned the height. Mr. Brooks indicated that the bottom of the awning would be at 8'8" with the mechanism at 9'. 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Action It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the awning as submitted. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Holden Absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 96-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, 2955 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to install a building mounted 25'high antenna LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented the plans for the antenna reporting that it is in place of the former tower proposal near McDonalds on El Paseo. He explained that the proposal was for an 18'pole with a T antenna on top. The cylinder is 16". Mr. Smith added that the antenna would be placed approximately 600 feet from Highway 111 and 800 to 900 feet from the residential community to the north. It will be approximately 250 feet in from each end of the roof of the mall. Action It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the building mounted antenna as submitted. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Holden Absent. 4. CASE NO.: 4709 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HEATH & CO. for LUCKYS, 2525 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 101,Dallas, Texas 75229 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage LOCATION: Northeast corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 ZONE: P.C. (4) Steve Smith presented the drawings for the proposed sign program for Luckys. He indicated that the building is 280 feet wide facing Highway 111 which permits up to 120 square feet of sign facing Highway 111. Mr. Smith outlined the proposal showing 180 square feet of signage facing Highway 111 with the main "Luckys" sign and a cabinet sign underneath it reading"Max Pak- The Warehouse Store Within A Store". In addition,the proposal shows "Deli, Bakery & Seafood" as well as a"Bank of America" sign because they will have one of their mini branches in the store. "Luckys"was proposed with red faces and red neon tubing inside while"Bank of America"was proposed with white neon. Mr. Smith suggested that"Bakery/Deli"be placed on one side of the main "Luckys" sign with"Bank of America"on the other, eliminating"Seafood". These changes would bring the signage within code requirements with respect to the number of"accessory" signs. Commissioners Connor and Gregory concurred with minimizing the verbiage as it looked too cluttered. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would rather keep "Seafood" and eliminate the "Max Pak- The Warehouse Store Within A Store"verbiage. He suggested that the "Max Pak" signage be moved to inside the store. Commissioner Urrutia did not see the need for the"Seafood" signage because most supermarkets carry seafood. Commissioner Gregory suggested that"Deli/Bakery"be placed on one side of the "Luckys"main sign and"Bank of America"on the other side, eliminating the "Max Pak"verbiage as this would help bring the signage into maximum area compliance. Mr. Smith noted an additional proposal showed the"Luckys" sign only with "Max Park- The Warehouse Store Within A Store" on the west elevation. He thought that this sign had to be reverse channel letters if it is illuminated because it faces the residential area to the west. Mr. Smith added that where the sign is currently placed, the top would be 29'high, and therefore would have to take an action by city council as it exceeds the 20'high maximum height limit. Mr. Smith added that the proposal would have to be reduced to a maximum of three colors. The representative for the applicant, Jim Engle, indicated that there was an additional proposal for a free standing sign on Highway 111. Commissioner Urrutia asked where it would be placed. Mr. Engle replied that it would be located at the entrance driveway on Highway 111, which would be the center of 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 the site. Mr. Smith noted that the free standing sign met the code requirements at a maximum height of 6 feet. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the signage subject to the following conditions: 1) A maximum of three face colors; 2) Eliminating"Seafood" and placing"Bank of America" in its place; 3) Eliminating the"Max Pak- The Warehouse Store Within A Store"can sign; 4) Channel letters to be used on the south elevation with reverse channel letters on the west; 5) Both"Luckys" and"Bank of America"to use white neon at a maximum of 4500; 6) Height to be addressed by city council; 7) Monument sign approved as submitted. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Holden Absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 96-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, 1706 "B"Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final plan review LOCATION: North side of Highway 111, approximately 505 feet east of Deep Canyon ZONE: P.C. (4) Steve Smith presented the plans for final approval of the elevations. Mr. Buchanan discussed his concerns with the electrical equipment panel screening and the ladder to the roof. 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Action It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the final plans subject to the following conditions: 1) Move gas meter around the corner of the building; 2) Enclose utility switch gear box; 3) Enclose electrical equipment in a room which will include the ladder to the roof. Motion carried 4-0, Commissioners Gregory and Holden Absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 96-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): McFADDEN &McINTOSH ARCHITECTS for COLD CALL COWBOY PRODUCTIONS, 74-929 Larrea, Suite 1A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT (APPROVAL SOUGHT): Approval of preliminary landscaping and architectural plans for 14,990 square foot warehouse/office building LOCATION: Southeast corner of Boardwalk and St. Charles Place ZONE: S.I. Steve Smith presented the plans for the proposed warehouse/office building located in the service industrial zone. He reported that the applicant's existing office is approximately 200 feet south of this building, on the opposite corner. Eric Johnson had comments marked on the landscaping plans indicating that he felt the plan was over-planted. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the depth was on the recessed arches. Mr. McIntosh indicated that they were approximately 4" deep. Commissioner Connor stated that for the most part he agreed with Mr. Johnson's comments and was concerned with the mia quorum and acacia being used as trees. He directed the applicant to find a substitute for these. Commission Connor added that some of the plants were not labeled on the landscaping plan and therefore would need to see a detailed plan before he could approve it. 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Commissioner Urrutia asked about the"future demo area". Mr. McIntosh indicated that it was something to satisfy the condition of the applicant's original conditional use permit at his existing building because it is under parked. Mr. Drell added that the new building would provide the parking spaces lacking at the existing building. He added that the condition will be added to this project which states that if the applicant ever wants to change the use at this site, they will have to demolish part of the building to meet the parking requirement. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with some of the parallel parking spaces. Action It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the preliminary plans subject to the comments noted on the landscaping plans being addressed. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Holden Absent. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 96-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): McFADDEN& McINTOSH ARCHITECTS for CAM'S CORNER, 73-929 Larrea, Suite IA, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of revised site plan and canopy elevation LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith reported that since this matter was before the commission in August the applicant has been before the planning commission where the matter was continued to a date uncertain to allow them to create a traffic impact analysis. As well, they have revised the plans. Mr. Smith added that the applicant has been attempting to meet with the neighbors to discuss the project. He indicated that the setback has been increased to 12 feet from Allessandro, the landscaping widened to 12' on the Deep Canyon side, and altered the roof canopy portion. Mr. Smith noted that in the earlier versions there was a sloped tile roof element on the canopy. It has been lowered 2-1/2' and flattened, but still covers the forward most half of the third pump isle. Mr. Smith added that the building has been reduced in size to 5500 square feet with the original plan at 6500 square feet. 7 A%r MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission has asked for architectural and site planning changes, traffic study, and statements from the neighbors indicating that they find the plan acceptable. He noted that changes have been made on the architecture, the traffic study is still pending, and there was one neighbor present today. The neighboring property owner, Dennis Goedecke, stated that he was still unclear where the setbacks are measured from on Allessandro and if the sidewalk was included in the setback. Mr. Smith replied that the plans show 6 feet of sidewalk and 12 feet of planting. Mr. Goedecke indicated that he was in agreement with these setbacks. Mr. Goedecke asked how far the canopy extended as he thought that it was moved back at the last meeting and he did not see this change made. He indicated that the canopy was still an issue with him. Commissioner Gregory agreed and indicated that there were conditions made at the last meeting in regards to the canopy length in proximity of the corner. He did not see how this condition was addressed on the revised plans. Mr. Smith read the conditions from the August 13th action: 1) Increase landscape planter along Allessandro Drive from 9 feet to 12 feet; 2)Move the landscape curb approximately 20 feet to the northwest, thus eliminating the outside use of the third island; and 3) The edge of the canopy to be moved back so that it extends out no more than 6 feet beyond the second island. Commissioner Urrutia stated that the last two items still have not been addressed. The applicant, Jim McIntosh, stated that his client had done his homework and that there is a formula that has to be followed for the gas station to work. He felt that he has given in on a lot of issues and that his client believes that he probably won't proceed with the project the way it has been conditioned. Mr. McIntosh went on to explain that the project is at 24% landscaping, which is considerably more landscaping than normal with 15% of building coverage. Mr. Tim Bartlett stated that he felt there was some direction from the planning commission to go back to the architectural review commission and have them look at the architecture and landscaping as it was up to the planning commission to approve the use and site plan. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and felt that this is what the commission was doing. He felt that the architectural review commission's decision is based strictly on aesthetics. Mr. McIntosh showed the new distance of 32 feet from the curb to the canopy. Mr. Bartlett added that the new Lucky's project was approved at 30 feet from the curb and it is directly across the street. Commissioner Gregory asked what the distance was from the canopy to Deep Canyon. Mr. McIntosh indicated that the 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 canopy was 25 feet from the curb. Commissioner Gregory asked about allowing the bay closest to the corner and pulling the canopy back to the second isle, thus leaving the third isle uncovered. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that this was discussed at the last meeting and that the applicant had concerns with leaving the third isle uncovered. Mr. McIntosh indicated that the overhang is approximately two feet over the third isle. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that the commission suggested extending the canopy 6 feet from the second isle. Commissioner Gregory suggested extending the canopy 8 feet out from the second pump isle. Mr. McIntosh stated that he felt he has taken that extra step trying to meet the commission's concerns. It was moved by Commissioner Gregory to approve the plans subject to the canopy being brought back 8 feet, the end island remain accessible, and replace the hibiscus with trees. Motion died due to a lack of second. Commissioner Conner stated that one of his concerns was that when the plans for Lucky's across the street came in the commission asked for deep landscaping and they came in with 30 feet of landscaping. The 12 feet of landscaping here is just not enough. He felt that the landscaping along Deep Canyon really needed to be beefed up, and the third island does not allow for the necessary landscaping. Mr. McIntosh stated that Lucky's is different because there is,a large parking area between Deep Canyon and the building. Mr. McIntosh asked if the commission wanted to see 30 feet of landscaping on both sides. Commissioner Connor stated that he did not think that 12 feet of landscaping was enough,but what was approved at the last meeting would be sufficient. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he felt this was a sensitive site as you come west on Highway 111 and reminded the applicant that originally the commission felt that the site should be reversed. This was not done but instead the added landscaping was an alternative. He added that the commission certainly wants everyone who comes into the city to be successful,but on the other hand, they don't want to compromise on the aesthetics the commission demands from everyone else. He felt that you can not separate the use and the aesthetics. Commissioner Connor added that if the canopy were an actual building,he would definitely have concerns with it. Commissioner Gregory asked how high the wall was along Deep Canyon. Mr. McIntosh indicated that it was 4 feet to 6 feet to basically try to screen the pumps. Commissioner Gregory indicated that he did not think it was fair to hold this site 9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 to the same degree as the huge development across the street. He felt that by pushing the canopy back it would minimize the bulk and would do far more than increasing the landscaping. Mr. McIntosh indicated that by cutting the canopy back where the commission wants it would bring it 65 feet back from the curb. Commissioner Connor added that eight feet of turf on one corner would not be very effective. He added that a six foot strip of landscaping, when viewing from a car, will only look like 1 or 2 feet wide. Commissioner Connor reiterated that there still was not sufficient landscaping and felt that the commission needed to make sure that there is enough space provided to get the affect they need from the landscaping. Mr. McIntosh asked if it would help if they redesign the plant pallet. Commissioner Connor indicated that this is not what he was saying. He felt that the applicant had done a lot to improve the project,but that the landscaping still was not enough. Mr. McIntosh asked if the commission really could compare their project to the Lucky's project across the street. Commissioner Connor stated that yes they could because it is part of the picture here and you have to consider it all. Mr. Bartlett asked the commission if they could come back before the commission again. The majority of the commission was not ready to alter their action of August 13th. No action was taken. Note: Commissioner Gregory left meeting at 1:45 p.m. C. Conceptual Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 86-28, Amendment No. 2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID GEISER c/o MCG ARCHITECTS for 111 TOWN CENTER, 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised conceptual elevations for remodel of shopping center LOCATION: 111 Town Center ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. 10 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Steve Smith informed the commission that the applicant, David Geiser,was present with revised conceptual plans. Mr. Geiser reviewed the changes in the plans which included reducing the high landscaping around Pad 3 building, orienting the building more towards Highway 111, added canopies to Pad 5 building, and the details showing pedestrian flow across the front of Best Buy. Mr. Geiser added that the center is 90% leased. Commissioner Connor asked if the wedge shape is on both sides of the building for Best Buy. Mr. Geiser indicated that it was on both sides but you would not see the back side of the wedge. He added that if you could physically see the back side of the wedge, it would be finished off somehow so that you would not see the open back side. Mr. Geiser added that they want to add canopies to the corners instead of keeping the existing faded awning which extends all the way across the buildings on the west elevation. Commissioner Urrutia stated that he liked the colors and indicated that the experience with canopies here in the desert show that they get faded out quickly and are not maintained. He added that he would rather see something more permanent, such as metal, that would be part of the building. Mr. Geiser indicated that the tenants would not have the option to change the awnings. Commissioner Urrutia added that dark colors fade even faster here in the desert. Commissioner Urrutia stated that he mentioned at the last meeting that the previous proposal was showing color changes. He would like to see more color in the center. He added that the center needed some life and he could see that the applicant was trying to do that, but really would like to see more color. Commissioner Urrutia continued with feeling there is opportunity to do something more playful. He added that the long wall by Best Buy should be enhanced some way. Commissioner Urrutia noted that there were no overhangs and how important they were for shade areas for people to walk. He felt that the center needed to be more pedestrian friendly with the high temperatures we have here. Mr. Geiser indicated that he had no problem with creating some type of trellis element. Mr. Geiser reported that the sign they are going with for Best Buy is a recessed flushed mounted yellow sign that would be lit. He added that the sign is above the 20 foot height limit noting that the sign was approaching 35 to 40 feet high. Commissioner Urrutia suggested just using"Best Buy" for the sign, eliminating the wedge. Mr. Geiser felt that the proposed sign was architecturally compatible. 11 1%aw *MOO MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 Commissioner Connor felt that the large yellow sign was something that would be hard to approve as submitted. Mr. Smith suggested a yellow lit border with black letters. Mr. Geiser asked about changing it to a yellow tile. Commissioner Urrutia felt that if the material of the sign was changed to a tile or stucco, it would give it a more subtle look. Commissioner Gregory asked what will happen with the area where the building is being removed. Mr. Geiser indicated that it will increase the parking and landscaping. Commissioner Urrutia asked how much of the existing parking area will be upgraded. Mr. Geiser indicated that the entire lot is being upgraded and trees are being added to meet the parking lot shade tree requirements. Commissioner Urrutia added that they should look at what they can do to help the entrance area next to Louise's Pantry as it is very confusing. Mr. Geiser said he could do that. The architect for Best Buy, Sixto Beltrandy, arrived and showed pictures of a recessed sign done at their store in Des Moines and asked what the issue was with their proposed sign. Mr. Smith indicated that it is a big can sign which is not something the commission approves for centers. Mr. Beltrandy asked about the sign size itself as they were asking for 200 square feet for each sign. Mr. Smith felt that if it were reverse channel letters on tile, they will look at the letter size; but if they propose the entire yellow sign, they will have to look at the background as part of the sign size. The architectural commission determined that the project was not ready for preliminary approval and conceptual approval had previously been granted on September 10, 1996. Hence,no further action was necessary but the commission did direct the applicant to implement the following items: 1) Back sides of wedge element to be finished ; 2) Provide more variety of colors to the center; 3) Enhance long wall along Best Buy with some type of trellis element; 4) Make center more pedestrian friendly with the use of trellis shade structures; 5) Change material of Best Buy sign using a tile or stucco to give it a more subtle look; 6) Address entry driveway issue near Louise's Pantry. 12 I �..r MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 D. Miscellaneous: 1. CASE NO.: TT 24984-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP. for THE GROVE, 73-111 El Paseo, Suite 200,Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of solar protection solutions LOCATION: The Grove ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Jim Foxx addressed the commission indicating that he would like to get the shade protection condition removed from the 44 homes he is building at The Grove. He noted that he is trying to sell both inside and outside solar shade screens as well as a variety of backyard trellis features. Mr. Foxx indicated that he was not clear what the shade issue was about but that he wanted to give the buyers a number of options to choose from. He noted that there is an average two foot overhang all the way around the houses. Mr. Smith replied that the commission needed to be assured that, in every instance, there is at least a basic minimum level of solar protection. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that because it is a tract that we can have homes oriented in all directions, it is up to them to try to come up with the best way of providing enough shade for the buyer. He added that landscaping would help, but the commission is interested in more permanent shading devices. Mr. Foxx replied that he is leaving it up to the buyer to choose. Commissioner Urrutia noted that it is the commission's job to establish guidelines to protect the buyer. Mr. Foxx stated that he did not want to add trees because they would have to be placed at the ends of the homes to allow for patio treatments and pools. Commissioner Connor noted that from the very beginning the shade issue was something that the commission asked to be addressed. Commissioner O'Donnell added that if the buyer chooses not to buy the screen upgrades, commission should be assured that there will be some type of shade protection provided. Commissioner Urrutia noted that there has to be a minimum and that trees, at this 13 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 phase,would not be acceptable. Commissioner Connor agreed and stated that they needed to see some basic minimum fixed trellis solutions. Mr. Foxx indicated that he was not willing to place trellis structures at the stage of construction as he felt that the two foot overhangs were sufficient if the buyer chose not to purchase the upgraded screening that they are providing. Mr. Smith explained to Mr. Foxx that he was in the position to appeal this commission's decision to the city council. Action It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to deny the request to reconsider the solar protection solutions provided by the applicant. Motion carried 4-0, Commissioners Gregory and Holden Absent. 2. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RENEE SPANIER, 74-310 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 6' high block wall with a 10' setback from the curb LOCATION: 74-310 Fairway Drive ZONE: Martin Alvarez reported that the applicant was asking for approval of a 6'high split face brick wall set back 10 feet from the curb to line up with both adjacent property walls. He indicated that the file contains signatures from adjacent neighbors stating that they have no objection to the wall. Action It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the plans for the block wall as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 14 a Nooe MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 3. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIMONDS ENTERPRISES for THE GOLF CENTER AT PALM DESERT, 74-945 Sheryl Avenue,Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to install 35 foot golf course driving range screen fence LOCATION: 74-945 Sheryl Avenue ZONE: S.I. Martin Alvarez presented drawings for the proposed 35'high fencing along the south side of the storm channel to keep the golf balls from going into the wash. The applicant, Terry Cole, indicated that the mesh is V galvanized steel and that the fence would be at least 110 yards from Cook Street so it probably won't be visible from the street. Mr. Cole added that there will be nine wood poles at 400 feet long, spaced approximately 60 feet apart. Commissioner Connor asked if they could plant palm trees along the fence. Mr. Cole indicated that the fence was in a sloping area but could be landscaped outside the fence. Commissioner Connor felt that mexican fan palms would help in softening it some. Action It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the fencing subject to providing a series of groupings of mexican fan palms strategically placed along the outside of the fence. Motion carried 4-0, Commissioners Gregory and Holden Absent. 4. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARTY&PATSY MILLER, 72-870 Mimosa, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of remodel plans for single family residence at 18' high LOCATION: 72-870 Mimosa 15 lww� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 ZONE: Steve Smith presented the plans noting that it was a remodel/addition at 18 feet high. The applicant is asking for a side yard setback adjustment and has submitted written authorization from the neighbors. Mr. Smith indicated that the only portion of the house that is 18 feet high is the tower. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the neighbors knew the height of the tower element. Action It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the plans for the single family residence subject to confirmation from the neighbor to the south stating that they were aware of the tower element at 18' high. Motion carried 4-0, Commissioners Gregory and Holden Absent. Commissioner Urrutia stated that he felt that the commission needed to provide some type of guidelines for solar protection. V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. S EVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER SS/db 16 1 r j / Ncr AE , " A..) 7wL-- T � t T0 'd 2960 899 6T9 4so-lulow i uappnjow �,;-y, ,t 1 fl "PO J� C:3) p,mp 04� Z0 l a 2960 899 6 i 9 yso%U I W i uappi JOW