Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-09 �rwr�' � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 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 1 0 Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 1 0 Kristi Hanson X 0 1 Neil Lingle X 0 1 Richard O'Donnell X 1 0 Chris Van Vliet X 1 0 John Vuksic X 1 0 Guests Present Joe Dickinson, AIPP Commissioner 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: December 12, 2000 Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of December 12, 2000. The motion carried 4-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. In light of the energy crisis, Commissioner O'Donnell stated he was particularly sensitive about the use of architectural lighting. He believes it would be wise to get in front of the issue where the Commission has some jurisdiction, ie, the architectural tighting. His recommendation was to ask staff to review those buildings that are out of compliance with excessive architectural lighting that has not been approved. Furthermore, he suggested that the Commission send a message to the City Council i � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES saying it would be wise if the City guided the rest of the big users of electricity to cut back. Mr. Smith stated that he believed that the excessive lighting out Hooters and Blue Coyote should be gone as Code gave them until about January 3, 2001. Commissioner O'Donnell thought that a gesture by the merchants on EI Paseo would go along way in making a statement by not lighting the palm trees. This is a very topical issue that really hits home and yet we look at the feast they have on EI Paseo and other places with lighting. Commissioner VanVliet thought the EI Paseo trees lights has become a theme over the years. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed, but thought a voluntary gesture by the merchants would be appreciated. As for the Commission, where it has jurisdiction over architectural lighting, it could send a message about the over-use of architectural lighting. Commissioner VanVliet agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell while he is not bothered by the EI Paseo tree lights, he is bothered by other bright intensity lights. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a quantitative means to measure the brightness. Commissioner Connor thought the brightness would be a good thing to tone down in any case. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the way some of the businesses are abusing the architectural lighting is no more than another sign. It attracts the eyes to the sign location. It is over-used and looks trashy. This is something that can be controlled. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission members and staff could take note of offenders during the next two weeks and bring them back to the next Commission meeting. IV. CASES A. FINAL DRAWINGS 1. CASE NO.: CUP 00-21 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): BRADFORD GARROW, 73-263 Salt Cedar, Palm Desert, CA 92260 LEWIS C. BISHOP, Architect, 44-645 San Onofre Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 2 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of addition of garage/storage building to residence. LOCATION: 73-263 Salt Cedar ZONE: R-112,000 The applicant is seeking preliminary approval for a 1,441 square foot detached accessory building in the rear yard. The structure will have an access drive from Desert Lily. The building is 11'6" high and has a flat roof with a stucco exterior finish. Ordinance requires an 11'6" setback which the applicant can meet. Staff recommended additional architectural detailing on all sides of the detached building. The original house was built in the late 60's and has a stucco finish. Commissioner VanVliet asked if the new structure would be picking up any of the existing residence's architecture. Mr. Bishop responded that the house was very simple and he thought a simple, plain structure would be appropriate. However, if the Commission wanted to add detailing to the new structure, he could easily do that. There is no travel on the adjacent street and an empty lot behind the site. It is the applicants' belief that no one would be developing in that area any time in the near future. Commissioner VanVliet asked if the structure would be visible from the vacant lot. Mr. Bishop replied there is a 6' wall between the two lots that is about a foot higher than the subject property. About 3' of the new structure might be visible from the vacant lot. The only thing visible from the west is the garage door due to 10-12-foot high landscaping along the sides of the property. Salt Cedar is on the east/west axis and dead-ends at this point. There is a single car garage being used for storage. The new structure will be large enough to accommodate all off-street parking. Mr. Bishop stated there were intentions to landscape with trees for shade on the south side. Commission Vuksic stated the residence and the garage would be visible from the street and asked what if the landscape wasn't always there. This is a minimal approach. Why not make the structure look like it belongs to the house? Mr. Bishop stated that it had a totally different use and on the different side of the property. They thought a simple box structure in the back would be the best 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES solution based on his client's budget and his ability to meet his needs. Commissioner O'Donnell reiterated that the architecture should tie into the existing residence regardless of its age and style. There should be some connectiveness between the two structures. Commissioner Gregory stated he thought it would a very simple item to accomplish. Mr. Bishop agreed and that it was just a question of budgeting. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to continue the case to allow the applicant an opportunity to tie the architecture of the new building in with the that of the existing residence. Commission requests photos of the existing residence. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 01-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: BETTY JACINTO, 77-663 Edinborough, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 6' high white vinyl fence LOCATION: 77-663 Edinborough ZONE: R-19,000 Ms. Jacinto is requesting approval to install a 6' high white vinyl fence along her two side property lines running from the sidewalk to the rear yard of her single family house. Staff's concern was with the vinyl material and with the white color. The applicant intends to paint the exterior of her house white. Commissioner O'Donnell stated his concern about vinyl in this climate and certainly not in white color. He asked if the applicant had checked the pricing of other types of fencing. Applicant replied she had chosen this brand of vinyl fencing was almost half as expensive as other quotes she had been given and the white color would reflect the heat. Commissioner Gregory asked if this brand were available in off-white as opposed to white. Applicant replied it was not, but Bufftec, another brand, had an off-white option. 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory has had experience using Bufftec in an off- white color and it held up very well. He would be open to using the vinyl-type fencing in an off-white or tan color, but doesn't know if it is available in this brand. He made a suggestion that maybe the neighbors could be notified to get their input and if the color were not white, he would be open to considering this case. Ms. Jacinto said that she would not go along with this idea as she had other options such as planting oleanders. She doesn't like off-white or tan. She asked if she was not being allowed to use this material or wood along the sides of her house. Staff responded that she would be allowed to do so as long as the fence started at the corner front of her house, and not extend towards the street. The code does not say vinyl cannot be used. The City would prefer something in the front yard that would not require a lot of maintenance to remain acceptable. Ms. Jacinto asked, forgetting about the front yard area, if she could use wood in between the houses. From the house into the back, she can use wood or vinyl. Staff asked if applicant was withdrawing her request of the white vinyl fence in the front yard. She stated that she felt the Commission was not going to agree to this request and that the Commission was not going to allow vinyl fences in the front yard anywhere in Palm Desert. Commission stressed their reluctance was with white vinyl fences, other colors might be OK. Commissioner O'Donnell thought that for the benefit of the homeowners if the City could provide some technical information about how the vinyl fencing will withstand the extreme temperatures. He has seen it used in cold climates where it doesn't hold up. His concern is that you put up a fence that doesn't last as long, as a red wood fence for example. Applicant stated that it is being used in Palm Desert Resort and a country club in Indio where she first saw it. Action: 5 � � ARCHITECTIJRAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the use of the white vinyl fencing from the front corner of the house to the back and that the owner has option of incorporating the fence as shown on the plan provided the fence is off-white or tan. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 00-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDGAR DIAZ, PO Box 4127, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of single-family residence above 15 feet and 40% coverage. LOCATION: 76-727 Florida Avenue ZONING: R-1 Staff provided plans for the Commission's review. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the single family residence. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: TT 29444 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM HALLECK, PO Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 for SIX KIDS DEVELOPMENT NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of Models 2323 and 2326 for 32 single-family lots LOCATION: 74-098 College View Circle East West side of Portola, north of Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 Staff provided plans for the 3�d and 4th models of six. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the models. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 6 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANtTARY 9,2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: VAR 00-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MARICELA GUTIERREZ, 74- 733 Merie Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two carport structures within front yard of residence LOCATION: 74-733 Merle Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Alvarez reported that the applicant has converted the garage into a habitable living area. In order to meet the ordinance, they have to provide two covered parking spaces on the site. To meet that ordinance, the applicant is proposing two separate carport structures: one attached to the front of the existing garage and one attached to the east side of the existing garage. Both of these structures meet the setback requirements. Now, it is a matter of integrating the carports into the design of the house. Applicant has submitted a simple design plan consisting of 4x4 posts and 2x6 trellis rafters. The term "carport" is defined as two or more solid walls and a solid roof structure. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it was a matter of how it should be finished. It needs more detail than what has been presented. The applicant is being driven by the fact that the existing garage was converted. Commissioner Gregory stated that the proposed carport in front of the existing garage looks out of place, but the other one paralleling the east side of the garage seems to work well. It was suggested that there be a one double-size carport adjacent to the existing garage's east side, but moving it forward in order to fit into the setbacks. A double wide driveway could be installed and the existing driveway removed. This would have a better street appeal. With this in mind, Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about having a trellis roof coming off an angle from the house because it could become dilapidated and it was highly visible from the street. He believes the double carport should tie in with the existing lines of the house with a solid cover on it by either coming off the existing � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW�MISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES facia or changing the plane, but still have a design that matches the facia. The old garage is flat roofed. Since both sides are finished solid walls, there will be no posts and they will conform to requirements of wall framing. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve a double carport, 20 feet back from the curb, using the existing garage's east wall as one solid element, adding another parallel solid wall, and a solid roof structure that matches the existing residence detail with a lower roof line. Motion carried 5- 0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: CUP 00-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): McFADDEN/McINTOSH ARCHITECTS, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for Drs. Frank and Janet Kerrigan NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised plans for a 3,693 square foot medical office building LOCATION: 42-575 Washington Street ZONE: PC-2 Commission was provided revised plans for the medical office building by staff. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve the revised plans. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: SA 00-130 APPLICANT LAND ADDRESSI: SURESH SHAH, 73-345 Highway 111 #102, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program for office building LOCATION: 73-733 Fred Waring, Morningstar Plaza ZONE: O.P. 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW�IMISSION ''� JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Staff presented plans of the proposed sign program to the Commission. Staff had previously approved a rock monument sign similar to those at the Civic Center complex. Originally, the applicant requested twelve tenant signs on the north and south elevations with 12" high, reverse individual channel letters in polished brass. The north elevation signage would be illuminated, the south elevation would not. Dr. Shah has revised that request, asking for only four tenant signs plus two on the east and west ends. This would be more acceptable to staff, but staff remains concerned about the illumination. Dr. Shah explained that the request would be for four tenants on the north and south elevations, but each tenant may be allowed two lines. On the east and west sides, he is proposing two signs on each elevation with one line each. According to the City's sign program, he is permitted up to one square foot of signage for every one foot of frontage. His current request is asking for much less than the requirement. He is not asking for illuminated signage on the south side because of the adjacent residences. There are no signs currently on the south side, but should a tenant(s) want to put some up there, it would be in the same pattern as the north elevation, ie, four. Commissioner Vuksic found the north and south elevation signage favorable. However, he felt the signage was located too high on the east/west elevations. Dr. Shah explained that everything below the signage was brick, yet one of his tenants, Colliers Seeley needed the exposure for their real estate business. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the building architecture was good and the signage was quality. His concern was the preponderance of signage over the architecture makes the building a big sign. He had the understanding that the only signage would be the monument signage along with a directory arrangement at certain locations at the south and north elevations. Dr. Shah stated this was the first time the building has had a need for tenant signage and the request has dropped from twelve to four sign locations so that it doesn't look cluttered. But, again, some of the businesses needed the signage. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the building was nice looking and he had concerns about cluttering it with signage so the architecture would become cluttered. Dr. Shah agreed and pointed out that no signage would be on the brick areas. Mr. Smith stated that on the east/west elevations, since there is a maximum height limit of 20 feet to the top of the letters, the signage will need to be on the brick areas. 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CIIMMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Commissioner O'Connell asked if the signage on the east/west elevations was for first and second-floor occupants and if it had to be on the building. Dr. Shah responded that traffic from those directions was very fast and it needed to be identified. Mr. Smith summarized that the request on the north elevation was for four tenant signs of polished brass and reversed channel illumination and two signs each on the east/west elevations will be lowered, but in keeping with what tenant Colliers Seeley has shown in their photographs, to about 14-15 feet in height. The question is whether they are illluminated. The south side would be the same as the north side except the signs would not be illuminated. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why illumination was needed if this was a professional building as people would be using the building in the day time when the signs can be seen and the businesses would probably not be opened at night. Dr. Shah responded the businesses needed to show where they are. Commissioner VanVliet asked if a precedent was being set in terms of the illumination: dictating that there will be no illumination on the sides of the buildings in that area. Are there buildings in the area that currently have illumination on the side of the buildings? Staff replied that Foxx Homes and Stat Emergency buildings have illuminated monument signs, but the signage on buildings is typically non-illuminated on the existing office professional uses along there. The only exception would be the Hospitality Dental at the corner of Fred Waring and Washington Street. Dr. Shah asked the Commission if they were not going to allow anyone to use illuminated reverse channel letters on Fred Waring. The Commission explained that it had the discretion to do that and felt a professional office building did not necessarily need illumination unless it is being used at night on a regular basis. Dr. Shah responded that during this time of year, it is dark prior to the end of the business day. It is not irritating to the eyes, it is pleasant. Staff stated that Dr. Shah had the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Dr. Shah pointed out that there is nothing in the code that says you cannot have lighted signs. Staff agreed but stated that code does require approval of the signage program by this Commission and they are given considerable latitude in what they approve. Commissioner Vuksic commented he was concerned when driving down Fred Waring in the evening and seeing two signs (east or west) all illuminated. He believes it is too much in one area. He io ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�MISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES might consider one illuminated sign somewhere. Dr. Shah pointed out that the Foxx Homes sign was really bright and what he is proposing is not irritating to the eye and is not bright as the letters are back-lit. Commissioner Vuksic stated it was a tough call. Dr. Shah said that he was working with the City, and has been willing to reduce his original signage request to remove the clutter, but he feels they have to back-lit, especially during this time of year. The Commission suggested that Dr. Shah take his case before the City Council who might have a different opinion on it than does the Commission. Dr. Shah wanted reassurance that the Commission would be uniform - that every time it makes a decision, it shouldn't be made on emotions, it should be based on the code and what is elsewhere in the City. The Commission asked if any buildings on Fred Waring had illuminated letters. With a cursory review, staff believed that was the case. Commissioner O'Donnell explained that Morningstar Plaza is a beautiful building and that the tenants will do OK with the signage that has been approved. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the signage with the following conditions: A Maximum of four tenant signs on the north and south elevations with one or two lines of copy, two tenant signs on the east and west elevations to be placed on the brick facing due to height restrictions. Letters to be a maximum 12 inches, polished brass, individual letters with no illumination. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 8. CASE NO.: C 00-5 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): FRONTIER BANK, c/o Jim Montgomery, 1245 Deer Valley Drive, Park City, UT 84060 Martin Chuck, ORR Builders, 77-570 Springfield Lane, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request reconsideration of required plaster screen wall LOCATION: 74-175 EI Paseo (east side of EI Paseo south of Highway 111) ii ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CDMMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES ZONE: C-1 Commission was presented a copy of a letter from an adjacent business owner asking that the wall not be built. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commission Vuksic, to grant approval to delete the required plaster screen wall based on letter from business owner to the south. 9. CASE NO.: PP 00-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD DEBONNE, PO Box 1935, Palm Desert, CA 92261 c/o BOB RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Peter Latourette, PO Box 12798, Palm Desert, CA 92255-2798 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings of 10,004 square foot office building LOCATION: 44-901 Village Court ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to add this case to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. Applicant is requesting the final approval of the working drawings which were provided to the Commission. Staff had OK'd the issuance by the Building Department of a foundation permit for this office building. They are at the stage where they need to continue. The working drawings are extremely consistent with the approved preliminary version. Landscape plans have been delivered and will be presented at the next meeting. �2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to approve the final working drawings. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle. 10. CASE NO.: CUP 00-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRENDA and MIKE SCARCELLA, 77-576 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of flat- roofed detached accessory structure in rear yard LOCATION: 77-576 Delaware Place ZONE: RE (40,000) Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to add this case to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. Mr. Smith reported that the Commission had previously approved a detached accessory structure in the rear yard. Had shown a 14' pitched roof and looking to change pitched roof to a flat roof structure with glass block. While the roof line is lowered by two feet, the 12' edge is moving closer to the property line. A property owner to the northwest was concerned about the location and size of the building. That property owner is one lot off set and this structure is at the far end from where that property owner was. The site is 1.5 acres and the structure is 300 feet from the main house. The structure meets all setback criteria. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to approve the flat-roofed detached accessory structure in the rear yard. Applicant has option of changing to a pitched roof not to exceed 14 feet. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�MISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO.: MISC 00-17, Amendment 1 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): Gary DeFreitas, Lee Investment Group/WestVest, Inc., 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 350, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of two single-family models for Waring Court subdivision LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, Tract 25304 Waring Court/Phyllis Jackson ZONE: R.P. 6 Mr. Alvarez stated that this applicant received approval for two models which were to be pre-fabricated structures and wood framed garages. The new models will be wood framed. Plan 100 with A and B options and Plan 200 with A and B options, both plans have an optional attached guest suite in the front. The homes are 2000 to 2400 square feet with three car garages. They are within the 18' maximum height limit. Staff would recommend more detailing around all four sides by creating some recessing or furring. The landscaping has been reviewed by the City Landscape Manager. The City's Landscape Manager requested that they decrease the percentage of turf. One lawn area needs to be decreased by 15 percent, the other by less than 10%. There is too much plant material and he has requested they decrease the amount. Some of the plant species are too large for the area. They have fan palms clustered in a small area in front of one of the models where one fan palm maybe OK. Mr. Alvarez displayed color, material, roof tile, and stucco samples. Some of the existing homes have gabled roofs which are consistent with what is out there. The building to building setbacks are outlined lot by lot. Generally, the resolution of approval allowed 5 and 5 foot setbacks. Typically, this applicant is proposing 5 and 7 feet. So it would be a minimum of ten feet between two houses and in some incidences there might be 16 feet. Both models are gabled. The applicant was asked if they could consider hip roofs for one of the models and then stagger the models. 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�MISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES The Commission asked if there was some thread of continuity in paint colors or roof materials with the existing homes. While applicant was not sure, he felt they were pretty close. Commissioner Gregory asked that th�re be some transition if necessary so that there wouldn't be an abrupt change. The existing houses don't have recessed windows or wainscoat. If Commission required that of the new models, they would be out of place. Action: Commissioner VanVliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant preliminary approval subject to conditions recommended by staff and Commission: changing one model to hip roof and alternating the models within the project, making sure tile and paint colors transition smoothly between the first phase and this phase, adding recessing/furring on all sides of both plans, and following the Landscape Manager's comments of decreasing the percentage of turf, the amount of plant material, and the size/number of fan palms on Plan 100. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: CD 00-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JM MADERA, LLC, 2842 Roe Lane, Suite 200, Kansas City, KS 66103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary plans for a retail building and entry signage at Monterey Shore Plaza LOCATION: Monterey Shore Plaza, Lot 5 Parcel Map 24616,Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC Mr. Drell reintroduced this case with revised drawings and elevations of the building and the monument sign. The monument sign has been reduced from 20 feet and more vertical. It has been revised to be more horizontal and is no longer a wedge, but a single face. The center has no architectural statement from the street so the monument stands as an architectural image for the center at street level. The landscaping along the rear ridge is already there. The developer is currently working with the City to revise, refurbish, and is ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES replace plants/trees and gradually they have been changing out the islands. He anticipated that the separate parking area in front has not been done. They re-did House2Home and the other shops. They anticipate working with the City Landscape Manager to finish the rest of it by removing the underlying vegetation and tending to desert landscape schemes throughout this project. With commercial buildings in this area, there is usually some landscape to breakup long straight lines of a building's mass. Applicant asked if the landscaping should be in-ground or potted. Mr. Drell said that no one has ever done potted plants successfully. The pots stay, but the plants don't. If they were to entertain that idea, it would have to have a pretty sophisticated irrigation system. Commissioner Gregory explained that they weren't asking for a major landscape effort, just something to soften the building's image. The third issue concerned architectural detailing along the west elevation. The applicant addressed the west elevation concerns stating that initially it was a simple painted block with a metal cap. They have extended the cornice line from the front of the building all the way around all sides and added the tile medallions that were also on the front side. Colors from the front are now to be used on the other three elevations. They have incorporated a six-foot wall at the back, basically an extension of the PetSmart existing wall with the idea of you pass by on the rear street your vision would be limited to the area above the service/loading area. That's why the cornice line and tile medallions are at that projected sight level. The west (rear) elevation was originally totally blank. Now it has some detail, extended a cornice and added decorative tiles along this back wall. They have changed the yellow color shade to more gold as requested. The issue with the landscaping in the rear relates to the architecture of the building. It is part of the overall solution. Commissioner Gregory would like to request that a more detailed landscaping plan be submitted. Commissioner O'Donnell complimented the applicants on making the changes that the Commission suggested. However, he asked if there was any articulation on the west elevation. The applicant replied that at this point they do not have a good feel for what their tenants might need. But the main justification of this presentation is to give you the indication of the character of the phases, with the first phase being the Lighthouse. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that since the plans are not yet concrete, while the 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�MISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES function on the other sides than the front is different, it still has a face that addresses the public. Perhaps if they could articulate these individual faces differently, add some more of the detail being used elsewhere and make it look not like the back of the building. The property across the "rear" street will be another shopping center. It will have visibility to this side of the building. The applicant asked the Commission for its comments on the storage area on the west elevation. They have tried to screen it with arcade elements and a screen fence to create some depth. Commissioner VanVliet stated he like the east (front) elevation and would like to see some of those elements brought along to the west elevation. The second issue of the project being built in phases beginning with Phase 1, the "Lighthouse" phase, and the issue was how the north end building was going to be initially finished until the subsequent phases were built. The applicant explained that they would basically have the same type of character as in the west elevation with the continuation of the band and medallions. They have done a simulation of a potential tenant at the end of the building and have shown what the detail of that building will look like. With the storage area in back, they have created an arcade effect similar to the front elevation with a screen fence. The applicant explained that they would like to try to get final approval on the Lighthouse portion because that tenant is ready to go and he has meetings all week with other tenants that want to be in Phase 1 including one for north end. Phase 2 should start immediately afterwards. There is always the option of doing some furring with some plaster elements to replicate the arcade idea to in case the north-end tenant does not move in. The monument sign has been reduced in height from 20 feet to 16' feet and is less massive, more linear. It was also double sided. The question was asked why there was a need to have a monument sign on both sides of the entry. The rationale was explained as this is an exceptional center with virtually no building visibility. Usually, the major tenants have visibility from the street. In this case, the only tenant with some street visibility is Costco. This has hurt some of the past tenants who are situated in the back. Additional monument signage in lieu of building visibility would seem justified. With the marquee type signage, would there different names on both sides. The original version had places for four spaces; the revision version has two spaces. It is not up to the i� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Commission whose names will be on the monument. It was noted that the sign on the east side of the entrance is not on the applicant's property. It was Commissioner O'Donnell's understanding that the app�icant is asking for preliminary approval, especially for the Lighthouse phase. He moved for preliminary approval for Phase 1 (the Lighthouse) with further approvals being based on resubmittals with comments made on improvement of the architecture of the west (rear) elevation including landscaping. He also moved to approve the revised monument sign. Action: . Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner VanVliet, to grant preliminary approval of the Phase 1 (the Lighthouse section), with further approvals being based on re- submittals based on comments made on the improvements to the west elevation architecture and landscaping. Approval also extends to the revised monument sign. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 00-26 APPLICANT (AND_ADDRESS): ARIEL I. VALLI, 81 Columbia, #200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for an 88,550 square foot self-storage facility LOCATION: 74-853 Hovley Lane East (between Lino's Mercedes and the Post Office) ZONE: S.I. Mr. Frank McCullough, the developer, and Mr. Ariel Vallie, the architect, were present. Mr. Smith described the project as two one-story structures located along the east and west property lines with zero setbacks, 12 feet in height (Buildings A and C) and one two-story building in the center of the site, 24' in height (Building B). Building B contains the office and manager's living residence. There are two access points from Hovley Lane East, the main one being at the westerly end and a wrought iron fence across the front. 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Mr. Knight stated that the piant palette visible from the street tended toward subtropical Mediterranean. He has requested the applicant pursue more arid plant materials. He was concerned about the use of seasonal colors as they are often not maintained. He suggested the applicant pick another tree variety rather than the palms on the north side to provide more shade and that the Melaleucas or sod not be used. The Phoenix Canariensis (Canarny island palm) is not legal for introduction into the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Gregory asked that when the landscape plan is revised it be brought up to a higher level of description as it is presently generic. The plants need to be shown at mature size. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the front 20 feet of Building B is articulated one way and the rest of it is very different. He thinks the sides and rear are interesting and there is a geometry there as well as proportion, but that it would be a better design if the entire building worked together instead of having the front piece look like a different building. The front could be simpler and the sides/rear could have a little more going on so there would be more overall cohesiveness. Mr. McCullough stated that he believed they had gone far beyond what other self-storage facilities do by adding the windows and tile insets along the sides and carrying the roof detail around the sides and across the back of the project as well the color variations. On the east elevation, they brought the landscape area back thirty feet. Commissioner Gregory stated that there was no problem with the styles of architecture, just that there seemed to be two styles that should be more consistent with each other. Other than that, there has been no criticism. The applicants stated they could refine the architectural design(s). Staff is looking for a subsequent sign submittal. The plan currently shows large free-standing sign, 14 x 3 feet, or 42 square feet. The sign on the building looks to be at least that much. It may be a little excessive at this point. Applicant should look at how a smaller sign would fit into the same area shown. The Commission suggested that when the applicant returns, they be a little more sensitive to the overall signage on the buildings as well as on the monument. Perhaps with appropriate monument signage, there will be less need for signage on the buildings. The expected improvements in the architecture can be reinforced with better signage. The applicant agreed that they could make some modifications. i9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case to allow the applicant to meld the two styles of architecture and to take into account the Landscape Manager's comments. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 00-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LAKESIDE PROPERTIES, c/o Axcess Architects, 18652 Florida Street, #200, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping plans for a 27,116 square foot retail project LOCATION: 42-150 Cook Street, southeast corner of Cook Street and Green Way, COOK STREET MARKETPLACE ZONE: S.I. (Zone change pending) Mr. Rick Blomgren, architect, and Mr. Bob Green, applicant, were present. Mr. Smith reported that the applicant is seeking preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for the proposed Cook Street Marketplace retail project. The project will take access from the newly created Green Way to the east. The building entries will face west and north and loading facilities will face east. Mr. Knight stated that he had been in contact with the project's landscape architect since the beginning, therefore, he did not have too many changes. There were some plant materials he questioned —the Nerium Oleander and Rosmarinus Officinalis - and he will probably ask that the mesquites be multi-species rather than standards and to space the trees further apart on the east side. The project has matched the City's landscaping on Cook Street. Mr. Blomgren said he has met with AIPP and will be placing art in two locations. Applicant also stated that with their updated grading plan, the parking would be below Cook Street instead of doing any berming or adding walls for a screen. The loading docks on the east elevation (rear) will be screened from Green Way with landscaping. 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C(7MMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked how wide the planter areas for the trees in the parking lot were as they look narrow and seven feet is typical. Applicant felt they would be able to accommodate seven foot planters even with the loss of a parking space or two. Commissioner Vuskic stated there seemed to be a tremendous amount of attention to the front and sides of the building with little attention to the back which will be seen by a lot of people. He discussed possible changes with the applicant who explained that they tried create a little more of a neighborhood instead of a redundant retail center. That's why the architecture elements are different— a trellis area, a small covered area, a lean-to area, a rounded area. Any of these items can be extended. On the back, they added a different color band. Commissioner Vuksic suggested they do something with the long parapet and to break up the top of the building to create more shadow. It needs some more architectural relief. Commissioner Vuksid suggested moving parts of the single plane out about 4 inches. Commissioner Vuksic asked if some of the modules could be pulled out, keeping the same footage, but pulled them out closer to Cook Street thereby giving some relief on the rear. The applicant stated that could be a problem with the tenants. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the 8" arches off the building could project further out. The applicant replied that the rear site was really tight and included a five foot walkway. Anything they would do would have to cantilever off the building. Commissioner Gregory agreed stating that it might create an "eyebrow" and easy articulation. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was necessary to have the five- foot sidewalk on the rear elevation. He suggested having concrete access to the doors, but in areas where they weren't needed, perhaps they could have some planters for palms or shrubs to soften some of the rear plane. The applicant said he would work on improving the rear elevation. Commissioner VanVliet was concerned with the view the businesses across the street would have. He would like to see a lot of what is on the front brought around the rest of the building. Applicant asked if they put in a 6 foot wall and decorated the wall along with landscaping would be sufficient. Commissioner VanVliet didn't think a screen wall would do the trick. 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�CIMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES The buildings on the north are elevated as much as 15 feet above this project. Therefore, the project's roof will be seen. However, they are single-storied buildings and are back 45-50 feet. Commissioner O'Donnell stated this building faces on three streets and from a design point of view, they have to address that architecturally first and then deal with the landscaping. The Commission was concerned about possible signage on the side of the building along Green Way. The applicant said the only reason it was there to indicate the rear of the building for loading which can be done in smaller ways and with placards. Commissioner Gregory asked where the signage would be placed on the front elevation. Applicant replied it would be placed over the shed roofs. Commission noted that the maximum height at the top of the signage letters is 20 feet. The trellis and columns will be steel. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to continue the case to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the comments of the Commission and the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): ALEC J. GLASSER, AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP, 301 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2131 RICK HUME, FREDERICK THOMAS HUME, 1990 S. Coast Highway, Studio 4, Laguna Beach, CA 92651-3685 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conceptual landscape plan for Palms to Pines Retail Center LOCATION: South side of Hwy. 111, east of Plaza Way ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Knight made comments regarding the planting spaces in the parking lot on the north side of the building. With the number of trees (137), there is a requirement for four species. There are four listed two of which are palms which are not widely used. The pine 22 ARCHITECTi7RAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES tree is only used along Plaza Way, so basically the majority of the parking lot trees are Cercidium Floridum (blue palo verde). He requested that they select at least two more species to mix in with the Cericidium. He also commented that they not use the Japanese black pine or Pinus Halapensis, rather use the Pinus Elderica Rick Hume, the landscape architect, stated that the landscape palette was basically the palette that was approved in the previous plan. They just applied it to the new parking lot and asked if that would have any bearing on the Commission comments? With the exception of the pines, these were the trees they were told to use. Commissioner Gregory asked if the planters to be used would be the existing planters or they were just being refurbished. Mr. Hume said that some of them were. In order to get the tree count, they will be adding to each of the islands. The small rectangular planters will be made larger. The applicant asked if the Commission wished to keep the minimum planter width to seven feet. The Commission thought the wider the better. Fortunately, a lot of the trees in the parking lot will remain so they will have a lot of mature trees at the outset. Most of them are clustered palm trees. Mr. Knight asked about the irrigation. Mr. Hume responded that the owner would like to use the existing irrigation as much as possible, however, that may not be feasible. To better ensure success in the parking lot, they have to make sure of all the exposed surfaces in the planters get saturated. Running a 2-4 drip will not accomplish that. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Mexican fan palms to be planted at the front of the building had been relocated or were they new. Mr. Hume indicated they would have to buy some new palm trees. They both agreed that it would create consistency by relating more to the new architecture. Action: Commissioner Connor moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to grant preliminary approval subject to the comments made by the Commission and the City Landscape Manager including widening the planters, changing the irrigation system, adding (two) other species to mix with the Cericidium, replacing the Japanese black pines with Pinus Elderica, and further consultation with the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. 23 ARCHITECTiJRAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: PP 00-19, C/Z 00-08, GPA 00-5 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): THE MATINEE TRUST, PO Box 2130, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 21-unit single-story residential project, Cayman Court Garden Condominiums LOCATION: 44-680 San Carlos and 73-690 DeAnza Way ZONE: R-1 to R-3 The applicant is seeking a change of zone to allow a 21-unit residential project on two acres on the north side of DeAnza between San Carlos and San Pasqual. San Carlos will be closed to form a cul-de-sac at the north end of the project. Mr. Smith indicated points of interest on the site plan on how the units will be located and what they are adjacent to. The applicant has advised staff that he has been working closely with the nearby neighbors. If there is a street closure, the neighbors need to be involved and this is an attempt to address density and traffic into the neighborhood. The height limit is 18', but the proposed units are at 15' 8". Mr. Rick Johnson stated they were trying to decide what would fit from both the City's and neighbors' perspectives. Addressing the cul-de-sac, he met with neighbor, Bill Seidler who directed him in the direction of cul-de-sac'ing because the neighbors to the north had concerns about the existing apartments on the west side of this project. They also met with Bob Downs who is on the other corner of San Pasqual to the east. Mr. Downs was concerned with apartment type of usage and he was told they were interested in developing condos. Mr. Downs was more eager to hear about this than a high density apartment project. Overall, the applicant is trying to create a very secure environment in a high-definition project. This is an oddly configured group of four lots. In addition, there are overhead power lines running over the property which they will be putting underground on the south side of DeAnza over to the an existing pole. Commissioner VanVliet asked about the power line easement. Mr. Johnson had a cursory meeting with Southern Edison. They were given instructions about the underground 24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C�IMISSION � JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES easement. The Commission questioned whether the applicant would be able to build on top of an easement. Mr. Johnson will check on this further. Commissioner Gregory noted the way the general site plan was being proposed was very clever. There is a lot of inerit to it. However, the enclosed parking triangle on the northwest corner needs to be refigured, something has to turn, right now one of the garages may be difficult to use. There are 22 garages, the extra one was to be for the manager, and a total of 46 open and covered parking spaces. Mr. Smith noted that the ordinance for apartments was one covered and one open. However, condominiums need two covered spaces per unit. At this point, the project is short covered spaces if it is to be condominiums. Commissioner Vuksic stated he liked the project. He noted differences on the elevations and the site plan which the applicant explained. The applicant thought they may drop the parapets on the garages a bit. Staff had suggested replacing the wrought iron fencing at the front of each unit with block walls in order to provide a private area for each unit. It was also suggested that instead of putting the sidewalk at the curb, they might pull the sidewalk towards the wall with landscaping between curb, sidewall, and wall. Commissioner VanVliet asked about the divider or wing walls between units. Mr. Johnson explained actually it was the firewall issue, there was no architectural purpose and agreed that they probably don't need to be as high as shown. Commissioner Vuksic had a list of architectural items to recommend. He asked what the bands were made out of and what were their detail. Instead of making it look like a band that had been nailed on and then plastered over, he suggested beefing up the lower exterior walls up to the point of the bands. The walls should be thickened so that the windows can be recessed. The back units facing the residential neighborhood have a 130-140 foot straight ridge. It would be good to stagger these units as was done with the other units. All the architectural detail should go around the entire buildings, not just on the front, especially along the courtyard. 2s ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CQ1v1MISSION '� JANUARY 9,2001 MINUTES Mr. Knight agreed with the Commission that this is a neat and very interesting. However, there are some things that need to be changed and he would like to see more detail on the landscape plan. They have not hired a landscape architect at this point, but will do so. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to grant conceptual approval subject to the following comments: beefing up the lower exterior walls up to the point of the bands; the walls should be thickened so the windows can be recessed; the back units facing the residential neighborhood have a 130-140 foot straight ridge which should be staggered as done with the other units; the architectural detail should go around the entire buildings, not just on the front, especially along the courtyard. The landscaping plan will be submitted at a later date. Motion carried 5- 0 with Commissioners Hanson and Lingle absent. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 26