Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-27 � . , � � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X 3 1 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 4 0 Kristi Hanson X 3 1 Neil Lingle X 2 2 Richard O'Donnell X 2 2 Chris Van Vliet X 4 0 John Vuksic X 4 0 Staff Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Daisy Garcia, Code Compliance Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, 2001 Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the minutes of February 13, 2001. The motion carried 4-0-3 with Commissioners Connor, Lingle, and O'Donnell abstaining. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. The Commission discussed the issue of having RV cases come before it. In cases where there are large vehicles parked in the driveway that cannot be substantially screened, does it have to come before the Commission when it is a foregone conclusion that it cannot be approved. Commissioner Lingle stated these cases needed to be sent some place where that is all they do, ie, really look at these emotional issues. It is presently a no-win situation. Perhaps the City Council can give that committee the ability to make adjustments. The language in the code could be clearer as to what "substantially screened" means. The Commission discussed recommending to the City Council the formation of i , ., � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES a formal body to review the recreational vehicle requests in residential areas as they are impacting the Commission's opportunity to hear more important issues relative to architecture and aesthetics in the community. Action: Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to recommend to the City Council that they establish a formal body to review the recreational vehicle requests in residential areas as they are impacting the Commissioner's opportunity to hear more important issues relative to architecture and aesthetics in the community. Motion carried 7-0. IV. CASES A. FINAL DRAWINGS 1. CASE NO.: MISC APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AARON HAMILTON, PO Box 12350, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of plans for 16-foot high residence LOCATION: 38-691 Desert Mirage Drive ZONE: PR Staff provided Commission with plans for this 16-foot residence. As there is no homeowners' association and the residence is similar in height to others in the area, the Commission granted approval. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the request. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 01-06 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46- 120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 for INTERNATIONAL LODGE, 74-380 EI Camino, Palm Desert, CA 92260 2 • ,y � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a revised double-face internally illuminated, free-standing cabinet sign in an existing planter LOCATION: 74-380 EI Camino ZONE: R-3 (4) Ms. Nancy Cobb, applicant, provided the Commission members with revised colored plans for the cabinet sign having made changes in response to comments from Commission members during the past week. The changes included removing the words "reservations" and the office hours. The text was re-arranged and some of the words were down-sized. Commissioner Hanson made a motion for approval subject to removing the phone number and "major credit cards accepted". Commissioner Vuksic made a motion for approval subject to removing the phone number, "major credit cards accepted", and the "rentals - day, week, month". Chairman Gregory asked if there was a second to Commissioner Hanson's motion - there was none. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that in the minutes the applicant agreed that "major credit cards" and the phone number should not be on the sign and yet they are still there. Ms. Cobb responded that the client had had an association meeting and this is what they approved. Ms. Cobb also stated that there were entrance signs at each of the complex driveways. This was the only sign being modified. Chairman Gregory stated that there had been a lot of clutter on the sign and it has been significantly tamed. His concern is that there is still a lot of stuff and perhaps different colors and sizes might add to that. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there were standards for monument signs. Staff responded that this sign meets the maximum height and size. The issue is the graphics, text, and presentation, and the clutter. Commissioner Hanson stated the applicant had gone a long way to clearly identify the most important things, ie, the name, identifying the office location. If we make them take the phone number off, it is 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES important to have the "rentals - day, week, month" because they are communicating to a wide range of people and because it is so much smaller. The AAA and 3-diamond rating was important. Commissioner VanVliet stated he had a problem with the word "office". It seems too big. He wondered if it could be taken off and put in another location. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that since "International Lodge" was on all the other signs, perhaps those words could be removed and leave the "office". The word "office" is on the front of the canopy and people have already driven by it by the time they see it. The background of the sign is white. Chairman Gregory suggested making the background ivory and taking off the phone number and the "major credit card" wording. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that a re-design of the sign might be necessary. He suggested dropping the "International Lodge" and logo from the top of the sign, same with "office", minimize and lower the AAA rating and 3-diamonds. The other stuff is not important. If they want to retain the size of the cabinet, that it Ok, although he didn't think they needed it. There are so many signs on the property, nobody is going to miss the International Lodge or where the office is. Ms. Cobb stated that the applicant originally wanted the sign to be 6.5 feet tall. The two bars on the side is what it is being attached to, therefore, the height is not proposed to change in either direction. Chairman Gregory suggested that Ms. Cobb revise the sign based on the Commission's comments and fax the changes to staff who will disburse it so that it could come to a conclusion. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow applicant to revise the cabinet sign: making the background ivory colored; removing phone number and "major credit cards accepted"; and lowering "International Lodge" and the logo. Applicant has been requested to provide a revised plan that staff will forward to Commission members for their comments. Motion carried 7-0. 4 � :� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): GORDON HEPBURN, 72-915 Skyward Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Rear Patio Cover LOCATION: 72-915 Skyward Way ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Drell provided copies of the proposed plan and photographs of the existing structure. The issue before the Commission is the design of the patio cover. The structure is visible from the neighbor's yard and should be refinished to look as much as possible like the applicant's house. Commissioner Vuksic showed Mr. Hepburn, the applicant, possible treatments to match the house, ie, a tile roof and outriggers. He pointed out that if the plaster, outriggers, and facia were incorporated from the house and the columns made more substantial, no one would have a problem with it. Mr. Hepburn stated that those items had not been discussed during conversations with Mr. Drell and stated that all he wanted was some shade. The problem he has is that his neighbor happens to be Councilman Speigel and everything the applicant does, his neighbor objects to. He doesn't want to see anything. He's been through this with his motor home. He tried to talk to his neighbor, but all he got was "I don't want to see anything." The applicant has agreed to suggestions made by Mr. Drell such as the same pitch as the roof, make it look as much as he can like his house. He stated that what he looks at across his fence is terrible, but he has never said a word and has never argued with his neighbor. He feels as though this is an abuse of power. All he wants to build is some shade. He has already agreed to tile the roof. Now, he's looking at suggestions calling for 2x2 columns. Chairman Gregory stated that Commissioner Vuksic's recommendation was just a suggestion. It is not a consensus of the Commission. Mr. Hepburn stated that he had asked the Building Department what materials he would be allowed to use on the roof. He had hoped to use the metal that was on AG Edwards and other places in town in the same color as the tile. He has no s , �` `� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES objection to putting rolled edge or tile on the roof. He has already investigated a light-weight tile. Commissioner Hanson asked if he was looking for a covered roof or just a trellis element. Mr. Hepburn doesn't want a trellis element because it has to be painted and really looks bad. From his neighbor's standpoint, he thought he would be happy with a covered roof. Chairman Gregory re-stated that the applicant wouldn't mind going with a roof. Mr. Hepburn agreed - he wanted a roof so that he could install a misting system Mr. Drell stated that originally the applicant was proposing painted textured plywood, but Mr. Drell suggested he stucco all the vertical surFaces and add a tile roof and tile detail at the edge. He has also agreed to go with the slope of the house's roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the only thing to be considered was the columns. Mr. Hepburn stated that he just wanted to use wooden columns like everyone else does. Commissioner Gregory said that wooden columns would work as long as they had the apparent heft to support the apparent roof weight. It is all perception. Mr. Hepburn reported that the Building Department already stated these would do. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't care who the neighbor was, if he were drawing this for anyone, it would need to be in proportion. Chairman Gregory pointed out that the proposed roof has a massiveness that can't be put on wood posts; it won't look right. It would look like it could teeter over. He asked about using nail-ons to make the posts look larger. A nail-on is a framed, box-out column that would be plastered. Mr. Hepburn stated if he put a flat roof in with 4x4's he's going to have peeling painted surfaces that have to sprayed in order to be painted. Would the Commission prefer this? Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't understand why such a big deal was being made about plastering some columns. Mr. Hepburn stated that he had seen very few patios in the City that look anything like this. He's a retiree; he's just trying to build 6 , , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES something that looks nice. His house looks nice. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and stated that if the patio cover looked like the house, it would be fantastic. Chairman Gregory asked if they were to go with wood columns, what mass would they have to be built to? Commissioner Vuksic stated they had to be substantial, maybe doubled up. 4x6 would be too small. 12x12 timbers were suggested or the use of nail-ons to get the same look. Commissibner O'Donnell pointed out that the information received from the Building Department and the information from this body may be different as this body is looking at it from a perspective of the aesthetics. Therefore, the boxed stucco columns which would not be all that expensive and the materials will match the house. This type of column is quite common in the desert. The Commission is trying to assist with the aesthetics and tying it in with the existing home. It wouldn't be that much more expensive, maybe less, than buying solid timbers the size being talked about. Commissioner Hanson pointed out that most patio covers are trellis materials and that's why they are made of wood. They are very simple and don't have the heavy roof element on them. That's where the difference is. Mr. Hepburn stated he hadn't planned on using S-type Spanish tiles. He never thought he would run into this type of problem. He asked if he could leave the flat roof and use the 4x6's. He asked if the Commission was saying he had to build this fancy patio or he can't build anything. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if he built an attractive trellis, that would be OK. Attractive would be defined with larger members, maybe with a nice detail on the ends of them, some decently sized columns, and stained to match the wood on the house. Mr. Hepburn apologized for his frustration stating that his neighbor has given him such a bad time about his motor homes and offered to show all the letters he has received from them. He is exasperated with the whole thing. He suggested just forgetting it all together and he'll put up a tent. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the Commission was not there to exasperate him, they were there to try to help. Mr. Hepburn stated that he felt it was an abuse of power because his neighbor had access to everyone � . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES present and he's just an ordinary citizen. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the applicant has indicated a direction he would like to go with the patio cover. Mr. Hepburn agreed. Commissioner O'Donnell continued that the Commission has come very close to one of the presentations in that they have made some minor modifications to his plan to meet the aesthetic requirements of the shade structure. Mr. Hepburn stated that the Building Department had asked him how close to the pool the cover would be. They were concerned about engineered footings because of the sides of the wall. Now he's being asked to add even more. Commissioner O'Donnell pointed out that if the applicant desired to go back to a flat trellis- type structure, the Commission was willing to accept that, but it also must meet some of the aesthetic considerations. It is no different than any other person who comes before the Commission for the same kind of conditions. Mr. Hepburn said that he wasn't going to do all that stuff. It's too expensive, he doesn't have the money, and he's not going to it. He wants to build a patio cover, he needs some shade for the summer time. He asked the Commission what he could build. Are the 4x6's Ok? And put 2x4's across or do they need to be 4x6's? Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission shouldn't be designing it for him because they don't know how it is going to be built. He suggested that the applicant draw a sketch and bring it to staff as a starter, then they could see what he intends to do. Mr. Hepburn apologized to the Commission, saying he was tired, they win, his neighbor wins. He restated that it was an abuse of power saying that he looks at a mess every day. His neighbor has pipes and stuff all over his roof. He feels like he is the lone ranger in this fight. Chairman Gregory stated that he could understand the applicant's concern, however, all they were looking at is what was handed to them and they are responding to that. Mr. Hepburn stated he didn't want to give the Commission a bad time. He was upset. His neighbor has never let up on him. He didn't even want the house there. He said that something was built before Mr. Hepburn bought the house and the neighbor doesn't like it. Then his neighbor told him to build his patio cover at the other end of the pool. Mr. Hepburn left the meeting. 8 . . �. � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Mr. Smith suggested that the Commission approve the modified form of the patio cover that the Commission is comfortable with. Chairman Gregory stated he was a little opposed to approving something that the applicant is vehemently opposed to what was drawn in an effort to help him. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to continue the case. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID GRAY, PO Box 3287, Palm Desert, CA 92261 for Palm Springs Garden Apartments, Unit #4 (Sandpiper) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport structure for 12 cars LOCATION: West side of Hwy. 74, south of EI Paseo ZONE: PR Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case as applicant was not present to answer questions. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: RV 00-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM E. LEITCH III, 74-582 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 1-foot wrought iron fence on top of 6-foot block wall. LOCATION: 74-582 Fairway Drive ZONE: R-1 The last action taken on the property was a continuance to allow the applicants the opportunity to come up with a solution to screening the RV. The 6' gate has been installed across the front. 9 . . � �' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES The item before the Commission was the addition of a 1'-tall tubular, wrought iron fencing to be installed on top of existing 6' block wall. The wrought iron fencing is proposed to help train bougainvilla vines to grow up and over the 6' wall, thereby creating more screening. Code is a 6' high wall maximum; 7' can be approved by the Commission if deemed acceptable. The Commission is being asked to review this item whether the RV if there or not. If the solution happens to provide enough screening, then that issue will be considered. There is no landscaping restriction regarding planting something in the applicant's yard near the wall that will eventually grow taller than the wall. The Commission decided the bougainvilla will grow up there anyway. If a wire was installed on the inside of the wall and wired the bouganvillas to that, it will grow and arch above the proposed fencing. The iron fencing is not needed. With the efforts being made, the Commission decided to have the case brought back in October. The applicant will allowed to keep the RV there, with the gate installed, and giving the bougainvilla time to grow. The RV is screened by the gate and 6' wall. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case to October, 2001, subject to installing wire guides along the inside of the block wall to train the bougainvillas instead of the wrought iron bar. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 01-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� D. A. FLETCHER, Le Chateau, 73-061 EI Paseo, #4, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business awning and signage for Le Chateau LOCATION: 73-061 EI Paseo, #4 ZONE: C-1 10 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Staff provided Commission with colored photos, drawings, and color samples of proposed awnings and signage. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic seconded, to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: RV 01-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: CASEY SORENSEN, 74-600 Old Prospector Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to store RV in front yard of residence LOCATION: 74-600 Old Prospector Trail ZONE: R-110,000 This is an acre lot with a deep set-back which provides opportunities to limiting the situation that smaller lots cannot do. The applicant is proposing to screen the vehicle with Carolina Cherries on the west side of the RV and a metal gate in front of it which is set back 25 feet from the property line. The RV is sitting beside the garage and is sitting 32 feet from the curb. It is behind the building set-back. As the neighbor will be impacted the most, the applicant was asked if he could obtain word from his neighbor as to whether he could augment their planting to screen it from their property and then the Commission could decide whether they like the hedge idea. Mr. Sorenson stated they were in the midst of having plans made from a complete remodel of their home. The RV will only be there for about a year; by the time the garage is expanded to accommodate three cars. In that short period of time, a hedge will not grow to 12 feet. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if the Commission were going to ask the applicant to provide planting and work with his neighbor, perhaps along with that there should be an agreement that after a certain date, the RV will no longer be there. ii . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to meet with his neighbor with some form of resolution that the neighbor can sign off on. If staff is comfortable that the neighbor is happy, they can approve that plan. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner VanVliet abstaining. 8. CASE NO.: CUP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON/02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, 8300 Utica Avenue, #245, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF P ROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary/final approval of construction of 65-foot cellular antenna LOCATION: 77-850 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Alvarez reported that there is already a 65-foot artificial palm tree in this area behind Country Club Plaza as well as a bunch of live palms. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why the building had to be so tall and why couldn't it be set into the lower grade as it is located on the slope of the retention basin. The wall has been raised to 8 feet in an attempt to screen the 10-foot building. Mr. Hank Owens, applicanYs representative, while he could not answer that without verification, he stated that they had found some new equipment which has a 6' height rather than a 8' height, which would allow them to lower the building's height. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval with the condition that the small building at the base of the antenna be lowered in height by two feet. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: MISC APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KAMI FRENCH-MARIGER, Blue Coyote Bar& Grill, 72-760 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 12 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior lighting for Blue Coyote Bar & Grill LOCATION: 72-760 EI Paseo ZONE: C During the period from Thanksgiving to January 1St, anyone in the City can put up holiday lighting. During the rest of the year, any decorative lighting on commercial buildings have to be approved by the Commission. Code Enforcement has been actively noticing businesses that have existing lighting. This is a first for the Commission and staff is asking for direction in how to approach these and what is acceptable. In this case, it is the string lighting on the palm trees and along the roof and the spotlights on the bell tower. Ms. French-Mariger stated that the spotlights had been installed while the restaurant was being built and they are angled down to shine on the roof. They are there for visibility and highlighting purposes, not to augment the parking lot lighting. She agreed that they could come down. The applicant would like to keep the rope lights. Commissioner Hanson stated she didn't have any problem with rope lights on trees, however, having them on the building is an issue. Ms. Garcia stated that rope lighting on the trees in the median was only approved between Hwy. 74 and Portola. They were not approved for any other commercial area. Code will be contacting all the businesses that have any lighting that has not been previously approved by this Commission. The Blue Coyote does not fall within the EI Paseo assessment district. Chairman Gregory suggested that the Commission take action on the most egregious offenders, those being the headlights on the roof and the rope lights on the bell tower and let the others slide until Code has an opportunity to work out some sort of system to address the lighting. Mr. Alvarez stated that each case would come back individually. If the palm tree lighting is acceptable, it should be for all. Commissioner VanVliet expressed concern about the colored lights in the landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that the Commission would have to develop a system in determining what was acceptable and what wasn't. The Commission agreed that a specific discussion 13 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES was needed to determine what was acceptable. As an example, Commissioner Hanson asked that if someone came in and wanted to use colored landscape lights. Would that be approved? Yes, it possibly could be. There is no set standard yet. Therefore, it will be based on guidelines on a case by case basis. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if a business had the right to take any exterior lighting they have and put in colored bulbs if they so desire. The response was "no". However, there are no set standards yet. Mr. Smith stated that the appropriate place to start these decisions would be with Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to directed the applicant to remove the headlights and the rope lights from the roof. The other exterior lighting will be permitted to remain with the understanding that once a policy is formulated, the Commission may revisit this case. Motion carried 7-0. 10. CASE NO.: RV 01-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� LARAE MOELLER, PO BOX 3775, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park RV in driveway LOCATION: 45-656 Mountain View Avenue ZONE: R-1 12,000 Staff requested and Commission approved adding this case to the agenda. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the addition of this item to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Alvarez reported that there is no screening proposed for this RV. The applicant's claim is that she should be grandfathered in. This body is an aesthetic decision making body with the issue of whether this vehicle can be screened. Mr. Alvarez stated that it could not be screened and therefore, staff could not recommend approval. 14 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Ms. Moeller stated that this was not a screening issue. It was an issue of a home that was in her family for the past 50 years. She has brought an RV down here for the last ten years or more. She used it first to transport her mother back and forth who had broken her hip. Ms. Moeller has fractured her spine and her sterum. She drives from Indiana out here every year in January to spend the winter in this home that they have owned for all these years. She leaves in April. She backs the RV into the driveway. It is only 22 feet long, half a foot longer than pickup trucks. She has two letters from neighbors stated they had no compliants. Mr. Alvarez stated that he had received several phone calls and had asked them to put them in writing. Mr. Moeller stated that for the Commission (City) to cause such misery. She understands that the Commission is stuck with this. She felt sorry for the earlier gentleman (Mr. Hepburn). Her mother wanted to make a huge donation to Palm Desert. She had parked at the McCallum theater, paid for$110 ticket, and came up to find she had been ticketed. Apparently, she had parked on the college ground because there was no room near the McCallum. This is such heady garbage. She is getting to the point where she dreads coming up here. The minute she parks she thinks "Give them ten days and there will be another citation." Ms. Moeller stated you couldn't feel more unwelcome. She stated they have probably paid over $200,000 in property taxes since owning the house. To make one widow so miserable because the focus is centered on whether an RV is screened enough from the street. She is not bothering anyone, she's not having loud parties, just has a vehicle that she can get into and walk out of. It is her only method of transportation. Chairman Gregory explained that with the increased urbanization of Palm Desert with more people moving in, it is becoming less of a laid-back community and more of a city. With that come all these hassles. And that is what she is experiencing from her perspective. Unfortunately, the Commission finds itself the forum for these issues. However, because someone decided that since it is an aesthetic review commission, this would fall under its baliwick. She asked if she would be put in jail or tell her not to come back ever again. It is just ridiculous to waste time on where a person parks a vehicle to get around in. By the time, the Commission gets through making the decision every year, she is already gone. � Chairman Gregory told the applicant that her comments would be excellent for the City Council, not for here. The Commission has to look at it from a certain perspective. Their charge is to look at the is . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES aesthetic issues. If this RV cannot be screened to some degree from the street, the Commission is not suppose to approve it. Her appeal with her physical situation is something that should go in front of Council as they can make exceptions. Since she uses the vehicle for transportation and not to camp in, that is the way she needs to present her case to Council. This is the wrong forum. Ms. Moeller suggested getting a group of 12 year olds to work on these issues. The Commission explained that her case would be declined here and then she has the appeal right, which she should follow through on, to take this before the City Council on March 22"d This, of course, will be near the time she will be leaving for the season. Action: Chairman Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to deny the request due to the inability to screen the vehicle in the driveway and advised the applicant that she may appeal this decision to the City Council. Motion carried 7-0. B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-02, C/Z 01-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROBERT ORR, 77-734 Country Club Dr, Suite K, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture and landscaping plans for office/bank complex, COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS CENTRE LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club Drive, north side of Country Club Drive, 450 feet east of Portola ZONE: PR 5 to be re-zoned OP Revised site and architectural plans were provided by the applicant. The site plan has been amended to provide additional landscape depth along Country Club Drive and there are revisions on the one- story building located at the center of the property. Mr. Drell stated that when Office Professional zoning was proposed at this 16 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES corner several year ago, the Planning Commission rejected a zone change from Residential with the exception of the very corner with the direction that if there is to be Office Professional in this area, it should be more like an office park, ie, a campus design, not a typical office design that is seen along Fred Waring. Ultimately, that was the result of the corner property. If Office Professional continues down the street, it would have that design. The problem here is it is a 5-acre piece that is split in half into two long parcels which prevent interesting or creative site planning. The options are either saying "yes, this is the best you can do" or "since this requires a zone change to encourage the two property owners to get together in order to build offices". Mr. Ricciardi stated that if the Commission was going to deny it based on this premise, they would have to go to the City Council because they have to make the determination of whether the two parcels are large enough to contain acceptable offices. Mr. Drell stated that the present configuration of the property is not consistent with the City's goals of an office project. Mr. Ricciardi disagreed stating that the corner property has buildings fifteen feet from the property line. He believes that he has better solution because his front building is 112 feet from the street. In addition, they have broken up the car parking so that there are a few spots in the front but 30 feet from the property line, 42 feet from the curb for nice landscaping and a meandering sidewalk. In the rest of the lot, there are spaces for 5-6 cars tops then a nice planting strip. There is never a lot of parking in front of the buildings. Pedestrians can easily walk from one building to another. With agreement from the Church, the wall be knocked down and the landscaping from both pieces of property will be combined and upgraded. The traffic flow be allowed to go between the two properties. Mr. Ricciardi stated they do have a park concept which is better and nicer with a lot of positives. Chairman Gregory noted that many of the issues outlined in the minutes had been addressed, particularly regarding some of the site planning issues and the articulation of the architecture and shortening the parapet height on the single-story building. Mr. Ricciardi pointed that they had also added articulation in the columns of the two-story buildings and in the facia. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he couldn't see how this site can properly be handled based on what has been presented. It doesn't meet many of the conditions of locating three buildings of this i� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES nature in such a narrow lot. The idea of combining the lots is the most logical to approach this to maintain more of"campus-like" environment. The real issue with him is the architecture. He began by congratulating Mr. Ricciardi for the article in the Desert Sun. Approaching these buildings in a philosophical way, the architecture here fits on Fred Waring, Hwy. 111, and the corner of EI Paseo, but not this site. This property demands something different than what has been presented. These buildings are more highly commercial type buildings and the architecture doesn't fit the site. He doesn't believe this site can handle two-story buildings, at least not in the way it has been presented. A single-story building with elements would be fine. The setback is not the problem. Mr. Ricciardi responded that the Homme property on the corner has tried to combine residential with commercial and has not done it well. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this was a discussion of this project. Mr. Ricciardi stated that this is more commercial, it is being seen all over the desert, and it is "in". If we are going to be allowed to go to 2-story architecture, What he's done is a nice 2- story desert architecture. The bank wants to make this their headquarters. The point is a 2-story building on Country Club going to distract from the street. He doesn't think so. Chairman Gregory stated that there were a few key issues here: The first being that this is an extremely awkward site. Do the layouts work well considering the constraint of the site? Is the current layout something which functions well and addresses the applicanYs needs as well as trying to work in the framework of a campus-like feeling. Can things be done better or is this the way it has to work? Commissioner Vuksic responded that it was a very tight site with very few options. It may not be fair of us to say they have to combine forces with the owner of adjacent property because what if they can't. Mr. Drell stated that the property was currently zoned for residential, not office. There is no "right" to build offices on the property. He suggested that if the land owners wanted to develop offices, they find a way to get together. The applicant has made an application for change of zone which would apply to both properties. If the Commission's conclusion is that unless they see both together, the Commission doesn't want to see a plan, that is an option. This case will go on to the Planning Commission and City Council, this is the first step. If the Commission makes a judgement that the plan meets all the goals and desires of the City, then typically everything gets approved. �g . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated further the need to have something that is really distinctive, original, and would have the least amount of objections to a change in zoning. Mr. Drell stated that office use is a logical use for this property, however, given the division of the properties it constrains the design. Is it worth a shot to try to force the issue and try to get the owners together. Office use is a logical use for this property, however, given the long narrow lots, it constrains the design. Chairman Gregory brought forward the second issue of the two- story element of the building closest to the street. Mr. Smith pointed out that the two-story buildings are 32-feet in height. The Office Professional zone limits heights to 25 feet. If the building closest to the street were to remain two-story, but were to subscribe to the 25' height limit, would that make the building more acceptable. The Commission and Mr. Ricciardi agreed that it could not be done because it causes severe problems with the air conditioning and roof leaks and ceiling heights. Mr. Ricciardi noted that someone decided, not based on the function of the building and how two-story buildings should work, on an arbitrary 25 feet. Can a two-story building work with the site constraints and campus quality. Commissioner VanVliet responded that it probably could work if it steps back more and not so vertical towards the street. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed with good architecture, a two-story element can work but necessarily upfront. Perhaps with the building set back so that the sight lines are further back, it would not seem as onerous to the street front, but would blend in with the background. As part of the Commission's consideration, will it recommend a height exception. Chairman Gregory stated that the architecture had to be something that works well for the goal of making a zone change worthwhile. Commissioner Vuksic asked that if the property was not zoned for what has been presented to the Commission, why would the Commission's approval make any difference. Mr. Drell responded that the Commission would make a recommendation whether there is an acceptable aesthetic solution to build offices on this site. Chairman Gregory moved along to the third issue - architectural style. Commissioner Vuksic stated that no one was excited about it, but it is acceptable. Does the Commission have the right to say the Church over there, Homme's project is more deserty looking, and Desert Willow all have a similar theme. Can the Commission say this case doesn't fall within that theme or is that more of a Planning issue. Commissioner O'Donnell responded that the 19 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES property is currently zoned residential. If they were to come in with a residential project, would it be approved because the other buildings are not of a residential nature. Yes, because it would be residential in nature. If the zone is going to be changed, the nature of the architecture in this case is very important, not that it has to match anyone else's architecture, but it needs to be distinctive. This does not fit it. The architecture is adequate for the previously mentioned locations, but for this location, the Commission needs to look at something that is far more distinctive and will compliment what is in the nearby neighborhoods. Commissioner Vuksic noted that previously the one-story building had a facia the same as the two-story buildings and it seemed heavy. He sees the same facia but with other elements made thicker to create some step-in at the top of the building. He had hoped to see a thin facia which would make it more desert architecture. The air conditioning units can be situated further back on the building with maybe another element. Chairman Gregory asked if certain changes were made in the three different items brought up as the framework could the Commission take some action which would encourage the applicant rather just a matter of not being sure, to give them some specific direction. Commissioner O'Donnell stated he would try to move the applicant toward the direction of trying to combine the sites to come up with site and architecture plans that would work better. If that failed, the applicant would have to make a decision. In this effort to get a zone change, it has to be outstanding, significant project and this is not it. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they had had conversations with the other owner to no avail. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he could not approve the project as presented. Mr. Drell stated the other property owner was going to get a zone change out of this. At this point, there is no incentive for him to cooperate. If the message got back to him that if he wanted to this up-zoning, then he would have to cooperate with his neighbor to put together the best possible project. Without it, he'll have to think about building houses on it. Commissioner O'Donnell re-stated that he thought this should have gone before the Planning Commission first. Mr. Drell responded that the Commission could make the recommendation to the Plannning Commission that despite the valiant attempts to fit an acceptable office project on this skinny piece, given the bigger picture, the Commissioner would not recommend it until there is a bigger site to work with. Chairman 20 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Gregory stated that if the Commission feels comfortable that this piece could be made to work, then so be it. If the Commission feels it would be in the best interests of the City to encourage the applicant and the adjoining property owners to try to join forces because it will make a superior project. The Commission should not support this project right now and that would send a message to the other property owner that he would be better off doing these together. Commissioner O'Donnell made the motion to deny the project based on the fact it does not contain all of the necessary requirements that make it a campus-type site. It is not distinctive architecture. Those are some of the conditions where the City might consider a zone change. Mr. Ricciardi asked for a definition of"campus-type". Mr. Smith suggested going down the list of site planning concerns, the campus-like setting concerns, the architecture, its height, and just go through the list of issues. Deny it for those reasons. The applicant is then in a position to file an appeal to the City Council. The appeal would be held in abeyance until the site planning and precise plan issues have gone through the Planning Commission. The two issues would then be tied together for the City Council. Mr. Drell stated that since the Planning Commission would be the recommending body on the zone change, this Commission should make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell explained that the case would still go through the normal sequence. It is a land use recommendation saying that while the entire 5 acres is acceptable for an office land use, having it cut up and planned in two pieces is not acceptable. Perhaps, as opposed to denying it, would be to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the land use issues. Dealing with these two separate properties as an o�ce will result in an inferior product to the City and therefore the Commission would not recommend the land use change unless these two properties could be planned together. Let the Planning Commission make a recommendation and evaluate the land use issue. If they decide it is perfectly fine, the Commission can make its decision on the design and architecture constrained by the one parcel. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that that was an excellent avenue to pursue. At this point, should we ask the applicants if they would like to have a motion for continuance or motion for denial to allow them to take whatever route. Mr. Drell responded 21 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES that another option was to indicate that the applicants had done the best they can with that parcel, but the Commission recommends that this is an inferior land use decision which is encouraging an inferior site product therefore it recommends that it not be approved. Is the architectural solution that they have provided acceptable here? The land use is a separate issue. In terms of this project on this piece of ground, for this use, have they done the best they can from a site and architectural view point. From a land use standpoint, where you look at the bigger picture of uses around it, of the opportunities which are there for something better, which is a bigger parcel. Chairman Gregory commented that he liked the approach about making some decision to move this on to the proper forum because this has a larger site planning issue. What is the most appropriate way to do that to reflect that the applicants have made a sincere effort to make this work, but we feel it would be better if were in conjunction with the other piece. Mr. Drell stated the Commission could give preliminary approval with a recommendation to the Planning Commission that they not a approve the zone change and general plan amendment unless the project is planned with the entire five acres. Commissioner O'Donnell had his motion read back: "to deny the project based on the decision that all the necessary requirements to make it a campus-like environment setting were not going to be met, and in particular the distinctive architecture.." He also added to that the problems with site planning that a recommendation be made to the Planning Commission for consideration to review the site plan. He was uncomfortable saying the properties should be joined; that is a decision the Planning Commission should make. If we are trying to approve something that is distinctively different to change the zone, this doesn't do it because the site they are given to start with and also because of the architecture. He would deny it even if it wasn't a zone change. The forum for discussing the land use belongs in Planning; the burden should be on them to find a solution for the site planning problem. Then, we can deal with the architecture. Chairman Gregory asked if there was a second to the motion. Commissioner VanVliet seconded the motion. 22 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission was reviewing what was before it. The site plan is good for what the limitations are. He was unsure why it was being denied based on this site and the other site isn't something the Commission should be looking at as far as approvir�g the design of this. To make a recommendation beyond that is appropriate, but he was unsure why the Commission was denying this. Commissioner O'Donnell responded that if this were a commercial site, that would be a very good argument, but it is a residential zone. If it is going to be re-zoned commercial then it should be something that is special here. To force all this into that narrow corridor, even though he agrees they did a very good job with the site planning, it is not the best it could be. Commissioner Hanson asked how a change for zoning is approved or denied. Mr. Drell explained that if you approve this change of zone, this is the sort of project you'll end up with. To a certain degree, the project sells the change of zone. The project that gets approved sets the overall level of expectation of quality. Chairman Gregory noted that the applicant did a very good job in working with the constraints of the site. Overall, it could be done better with the adjacent piece of property. This matter will be referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration of the land use issues. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to deny the request for the following reasons: 1) the architectural style is inappropriate for the residential/resort nature of this area of Country Club Drive, and 2) the Commission determined that the constraints placed on the site plan by its long narrow shape created a site plan inconsistent with the office park/resort environment. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 00-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LEE CHOITZ, RHL DESIGN GROUP, INC., 1201 South Beach Blvd., Suite 207, La Habra, CA 90631-6366, for MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, 3700 West 190th Street, #TPT2, Torrance, CA 90509 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for landscape and architecture for Mobil service station, convenience store, and car wash 23 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES LOCATION: 78-005 Country Club Drive at Washington Drive ZONE: PI-2 (FCOZ) overlay Mr. Alvarez reviewed with the Commission the recommendations from the last meeting. They included thicken the front parapet to two feet, add wood headers, peeler poles at glass line, add a free- standing color element over the front door, remove the glass from the east wall of the car wash and replace it with a trellis or smaller, punched openings; building signage - remove "On the Run" on the left and right elevations and incorporate the buildings' southwestern architectural theme into the monument signs; improve on the southwest desert landscaping theme and replant the southeast corner and median (which the City will maintain). Commissioner Hanson pointed out that the "color element" over the front door should have been stated as "the covered trellis". Commissioner Hanson asked why the applicant wanted the windows on the car wash. Mr. Choitz stated there were several primary reasons: 1) the windows protect the cars that are parked outside the facility along the window from spray, 2) when there are no windows, children are able to sit on the ledge which is only finro feet from the moving machinery, 3) it provides visibility of moving parts to the store clerk. The tunnel is 14 feet wide with a ten-foot driveway, leaving two feet on each side for the machinery. The Commission commented that the windows would become opaque because of the hard water out here. Mr. Choitz stated they would have to keep them clean because they needed the visibility to see the equipment. The Commission noted that because of the distance, the angle, and the landscaping, it questioned whether the attendent would have the necessary visibility. Perhaps a remote camera in there to solve the problem. Also, with the dark wall on the far side, it'll be dark. Mr. Choitz explained that the rolling piece of equipment is just inside the windowed wall. He commented that he didn't believe they had one facility without the glass because of the reasons stated. Mr. Choitz pointed out that the two "On the Runs" have been removed from the east and west elevations. "On the Run" on the front of the building and "Mobil" on the street side. They will be relocating some of the six palm trees in front of that sign to open the view. Mr. Choitz stated that although the presented plans did not show it, the signage over the front door had been downsized by about a foot in length and come down about 4-6 inches in height. 24 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES Mr. Smith asked the Commission how much border they wanted. The Commission agreed to a 12" border on the top, 18" border on the sides and on the bottom. The sign will be 4 feet, 4 inches in height. The parapet will be thickened to two feet in depth to make it more substantial. The applicant has put battered walls on the monument signs. There are also peeler logs across the top. Mr. Knight commented that they were real close on the landscape. There are minor changes which he will talk to the applicant directly. Chairman Gregory stated that since the changes were relatively few and well understood, he suggested the Commission move the case ahead. Mr. Smith urged the applicant to have, in particular, the sign changes completed before the Planning Commission review. Mr. Choitz stated he would have revised drawings for the Planning Commission. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to grant preliminary approval to the revised plans subject to the parapet being thickened to two feet, the sign over the front door having a top border of 12" and side and bottom borders of 18" with 4' 4" letters and logo, and subject to comments from the City Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�• COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Preliminary approval of architecture for a 16,000 square foot office/industrial building LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: OP Mr. Smith reported that the Public Works Department has submitted upcoming street modifications which affect the site plan. The purpose of the project being before the Commission was to 2s � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES obtain comments about the architecture as opposed to the site plan which may change considerably. They will be losing 12 feet off the Cook Street side, the curb will be moving 10 feet west of its current location, necessitating the relocation of building. Other issues include the height of the building prescribes a certain setback from the adjacent three residential units, the 30 foot proposed tower element may need to be back 60 feet from the curb line. There may be the option of turning the tower element 90 degrees along with the movement of the building, it would be possible to meet the setback. There are loading doors that face to the north into a two- story apartment complex to the north. The five overhead doors facing the north need to be made acceptable. The west elevation on Building B is not attractive to the residences to the west. The buildings are 22 feet high. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the applicants met the relationship between the height of the proposed buildings and the residential zone. Mr. Smith responded that they did not in the present configuration, but they could be lowering the building to 19 feet. The OP zone prescribes 20 feet of setback for a 18 foot building. For every foot above that, add 6.5 feet of setback. Commissioner Hanson asked if the roll-up metal doors could be placed on the walls of each building facing the opposite building, thereby keeping the doors screened. Mr. Sabby Jonathan felt putting the doors on the north elevation would be the least intrusive. The challenge of putting the doors on the facing walls is the loss of some parking and the access to multiple suites. Along the north elevation, he thought there was a staircase on that side of the apartment building. But he will take another look, and if there are apartment unit windows, he would put in trees to shield as much as possible. They do not anticipate heavy usage of the doors. The tower element is non-functional so it can be taken out. However, the building becomes blank which is what they are trying to avoid. They think this is a good addition to the Cook Street neighborhood. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the alley could be discontinued, therefore, providing more setback space. Mr. Smith responded that some of the homes and the apartment building to the north have their garages into the alley. Mr. Drell stated that the status of the alley was ignored in determining the width of the setback to the 26 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES backyard of the residence. They were given a credit for the alley in the setback. Commissioner O'Donnell had hoped that the alley could be used as a buffer zone between the project and the residences which would justify some of the direction he would go in improving the architecture on that elevation. Mr. Jonathan stated that one of the compelling reasons for this particular layout was that they thought it would be the least intrusive. The project will have "quiet-type" use, typically shut down in the evening and weekends. And no reason to go back into the neighborhood. While he would like to have another access at the northeast corner along Cook Street, but that it would probably be inappropriate. Commissioner VanVliet stated that this is a pretty visible corner, especially as Cook Street becomes a major corridor. He was concerned about the south-bound view from Cook Street at the 14- foot roll-up doors. While the perimeter wall is 11 feet, it goes down to 6 feet at the corner to match the existing wall. Mr. Sanborn, the architect, suggested that additional landscaping could be provided to shield the view. As the project is over-parked, trees could be planted in some of those parking spaces. The front of the apartment complex has substantial landscaping and you don't really see the property until you are right on top of it. Commissioner VanVliet asked if some of the back area might eventually be used for storage. Mr. Jonathan stated that is not how it is designed, but realistically that could happen. Commissioner VanVliet expressed concern that the apartment dwellers would be able to see the storage materials. Applicant will make note of the view from the apartment complex and try to screen any potential views into the industrial area. Mr. Jonathan asked the Commission for its comments on the architecture. He pointed out the use of red split face and grey precision block on the walls. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant may have a problem before the City Council with the grey precision block. Mr. Sanborn responded that it seems a shame to put up precision block and then cover it with paint or stucco. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the south and east elevations shown look very good. The other sides are a stark transition from the street elevation architecture. It looks like the street architecture doesn't want to be connected to the rest of the building. It would be better if the block was used more extensively. 27 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES He suggested varying the heights of the parapets and carried some of the architecture around the building. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed his concern about the west elevation and that it needs to be improved upon. He, too was concerned about the line of sight for south-bound traffic. If the roll- up doors cannot be lowered, can other architectural elements be added that might help break up the industrial look. He also suggested putting landscape pods large enough to accommodate trees between the overhead doors. Mr.Smith suggested that the case be continued as there would be a change in the site plan and there were concerns about the landscape solutions, parking, the west and north elevations. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to continue the case to allow applicant opportunity to respond to concerns, ie, building siting, landscape solutions for screening, parking, and the west and north elevation architecture. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: TT 29469 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74- 333 Hwy. 111, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Preliminary approval of front yard landscaping LOCATION: 73-770 Frank Sinatra Drive (north side of Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Kaufman & Broad) ZONE: PR-5 Commission was provided with a copy of the front yard landscaping plan. The City Landscape Manager commented that the turf area was a little large and he asked them to reduce the turf area. He noted that there was a mix of sub-tropical and arid plant material. He has asked that the applicant not blend the types of plants. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the plan subject to comments by the City Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 2s � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74-333 Highway 111, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for a 2-story (25-foot high) office building at the north end of Village Court LOCATION: 44-600 Village Court ZONE: CG Mr. Smith reported that the architecture for this project is in keeping with the architectural theme that has developed along Village Court. The comments for landscaping were provided. The building is both one-story and two-story with one window each on the right and left elevations at the second story. Mr. Gabriel Lujan explained that no other windows had been proposed because of the height of the first floor tile roofs. The windows would cut into the roof line. The windows provide outdoor lighting into the conference room on the second floor. There will be French doors to the left of the window which lets out onto a hidden executive patio. The patio cannot be seen as it is situated behind the first floor's tile roof parapet on the right elevation. The parapet is 6 feet in height. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that the French doors be taller than 6' 8" so that they can be seen. The rear elevation faces the senior housing which is set lower and there is a 6-foot wall with a driveway and garages on the other side of the wall. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if there were to be offices on the second floor, every attempt should be made to obtain natural lighting through windows or skylights which might necessitate reducing some of the parapets. If windows are put in the second- story rear elevation, they will need to be opaque glass block in order to avoid a line of sight into the senior housing complex. The first floor roof height was determined by the association as all the other buildings in the area are at that height. The Commission expressed concern about the "verticality" of the first floor roof lines. The applicant was asked if they could work with the pop-outs to make them less vertical and better proportioned. 29 e �' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27,2001 MINUTES On the left elevation, the tile roof that is suspended over the center arch looks and doesn't seem to be grounded. Perhaps it could be lowered. The arches are at different radii. Commission Vuksic commented that the doors/windows located beneath the arches be centered. There are a number of elements that are jutting in and out. Why do the stairs have to be the same height as everything else. Mr. Lujan commented that he could put in some high windows otherwise he would be cutting into his tile and he will center all the windows. The City Landscape Manager has provided his comments and thought the landscape plan was basically acceptable. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the project subject to the comments made, ie, increase the height of the French doors at the executive patio, attempt to add more windows on the second floor noting that windows on the rear elevation need to be opaque, attempt to break up the "verticality" of the first floor roof line perhaps by changing the height of the stairway, have a grounded look to some of the tile roofs that seem suspended perhaps by lowering, attempt to have the arches the same radi, center the windows and doors under the arches, and comply with Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 30