Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-13 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 15 3 Kristi Hanson X 15 2 Neil Lingle x 12 5 Richard O'Donnell X 12 3 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 17 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 23, 2001 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the minutes of October 23, 2001. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council appointed a seventh member to the Architectural Review Commission, however, this person does not 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES live in Palm Desert. This has been brought to the attention of the Mayor and this matter is therefore being reconsidered. A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC. 01-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI:CITY OF PALM DESERT/SANDPIPER'S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, c/o Jeremy Vela, Senior Engineering Technician NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of conditions of approval relating to construction of perimeter wall along Sandpiper's Development. LOCATION: Perimeter of Sandpiper Residential Development, El Paseo & Highway 111. ZONE: P.R. 5 Mr. Smith stated that Sandpiper does not want to do the undulation and will put in pilasters instead. Mr. Alvarez stated that they are physically constrained by the right-of-way, which varies from 10-12 feet. They want to add landscaping and berm it up to minimize the face of the wall. Pilasters will be added every 45 feet. Mr. Alvarez stated that two weeks ago, the City and Sandpiper Development along El Paseo and Highway 74 came before the Commission requesting a couple of exceptions for height and location of a block wall. The wall has previously been approved with conditions, including those pertaining to the Highway 74 frontage. The Commission requested that offset from the wall be provided to address the proximity of the wall and the height. After further consideration, the engineering department wishes to have this condition reconsidered. There are some obvious constraints due to the limited right of way and also the carports, which are behind the perimeter wall and prevents them from moving the wall back. In order to address the offsetting, they have requested the use of pilasters placed approximately every 45 feet to break up the elevation and have a planter with some berming along the front of the wall. The carports are in increments of approximately six stalls, which have been recently approved. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson inquired as to whether the wall would hide the carports. Also, she remarked that there used to be a 12' oleander hedge where the proposed wall is going to be built. One of the conditions for approving the removal of the hedge was that the replacement (whether it be landscaping or a block wall) hide the carports. She also suggested that the berm go up against the wall to make it less visible. Mr. Knight stated that the berms will roll so that there will be low areas and taller areas. There may be some areas where you will see some component of the whole wall, but it will certainly be broken up with landscaping. Mike Errante was present and spoke on behalf of Sandpiper Development. The distance between the driveways are approximately 262', 500' and 250' apart. The wall will be installed first, then the irrigation and landscaping. The landscaping design has not been submitted. Commissioner Gregory suggested using stepping at the pilasters. There is an opportunity to use the pilasters as stepping points for the wall. The maximum height of the proposed wall of 8' would be sufficient to hide whatever is behind it. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that something could be done with properly placed vegetation. The right kind of trees could be placed in locations to obscure the view of the parking structures. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the wall with the following conditions: (1) berm is to go up to the wall, (2) pilasters located where wall steps in height and are done so uniformly, (3) landscape higher than top of wall, (4) no permits issued until landscape plans are approved. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Plan n ing\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES 2. 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 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: 01-128 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VINCENT BATTAGLIA, 74-770 Hwy. 111, Suite 101, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of illuminated business identification signage. LOCATION: 73-993 Hwy. 111, Suite 200 B, Strole & Associates ZONE: C-1 Mr. Alvarez stated that in December of 2000, this Commission approved a sign program for this building located at the corner of Portola and Highway 111. One of the signs that was approved was a second-story tenant sign, which was located on the first floor. At that time, it was for Dr. Conrow who originally requested a sign on a fascia. The Commissions' direction was to approve it in the lower location. At this time, the applicant is requesting that this sign be relocated to the second-floor area. The letters are channel letters in blue to match the AG Edwards sign and are 7'/2" high. The sign is front illuminated. The letters are smaller individually, however, there are now two rows. The original letters were 12" high, but only one row. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR01 11 13.min.wpd 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the sign, but they had previous problems with this building and came up with the sign locations for a reason. She does not think that it would be appropriate to have the sign on the second-story. Mrs. Conrow, the upstairs tenant, was present and requested that the sign remain on the first level. Dr. Conrow elected not having his name on the second floor in the event that a third tenant would come in next door, so that they would have appropriate signage on that level. Mr. Drell commented that the sign looks more in conflict with the AG Edwards sign when,it is shown located on the second level, rather than the lower level. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the letter color and style, deny the request to relocate the sign and reaffirm the previous action and signage location. 4. CASE NO.: 01-129 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY, INC. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of free- standing sign to replace existing free-standing sign. LOCATION: 42-693 Washington Street ZONE: O.P. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval subject to the provision that the sign be moved back from the street and the base be revised as shown in the exhibit on file. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 5 �Ir+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: MISC. 01-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GLS, CHOICE ENTERPRISE, 74-923 Highway 111, Suite 114, Indian Wells, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 17' height on home. LOCATION: 76-560 Florida Ave. ZONE: R-1 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 6. CASE NO.: 01-131 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarloaf Ave., Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior awning at Carl's Jr. Restaurant. LOCATION: 73-155 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the existing awning is red and is requesting the addition of a series of abstract American flags. Commissioner Hanson stated that her position is that if a business wants to express their patriotism they should display a flag. Painting an awning with a pseudo-flag motif is not appropriate on a long-term basis. Commissioner Gregory commented that they had trouble getting the original signage approved and an effort should be maintained to keep a subdued approach on the awning. He is requesting something that is restrained to offset the "wildness" of the sign. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 6 o ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Ernie Brooks from Palms to Pines Canvas was present and stated that he wanted to use the Palm Desert Carl's Jr. as a model for all the Carl's Jr.'s. He is willing to compromise on the design of the awning. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to deny the request to change the existing red drop awning to a series of abstract American flags. The Architectural Review Commission stated that the proposal appeared cluttered and busy. The Commission suggested a more subdued, muted approach and that if the applicant wishes to display patriotism, it could use a real American flag on a flag pole. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 01-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOBE CONSTRUCTION, 73-213 Bel Air Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requesting approval for a 17'6" roof height. LOCATION: 72-650 Theodora ZONE: R-1 12,000 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval for a 17'6" roof height. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 8. CASE NO.: CUP 00-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KENNY LUCKEROTH, 77-555 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of detached accessory structure in rear yard. LOCATION: 77-555 Delaware Place ZONE: RE (40,000) G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 7 `kwo ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION + NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the accessory structure is located behind the house and is 20' off the rear lot line. It has a bathroom and air conditioning. The required rear set-back is 50'. This will go to the Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process. The building is over 100' long. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the style of architecture should match the main house to tie it all together. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the case to allow the applicant to be present. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JIM HOOD, ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, 3350 E. Concours Street, #26N, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for automobile fuel station and convenience store. LOCATION: 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive, northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Craig Yamasaki, Representative for Arco Products, was present. He stated that after the last meeting, he sent the drawings back to headquarters to have them revised. He stated that particular attention was paid to design and elevation to provide screening for any rooftop equipment so that it would not be visible. Alex Cuevas, Architect, presented the new drawings. Commission Vuksic wanted verification that the mechanical equipment is below the parapet so that it would not be visible. This was confirmed by the architect. He had a concern about the light colors that are proposed for the exterior. He stated that it would be too bright. He G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES suggested darkening the colors. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about how the signs on the curved wall section were going to be mounted on the surface of the building. Mr. Cuevas stated that the signs were going to mounted on one plane and not follow the wall. Commissioner Gregory stated that it could end up looking like you got an extra sign out of the "spare parts bin". He commented that there is an interesting architectural element and it appears that the signs would be fighting it. He also stated that he does not want to punish the architect for doing a good job. This has happened where someone has put a lot of effort into doing a good design and then they get penalized on signage. Mr. Cuevas commented that the "eyebrow" or"sun" will be attached to the building at three points; two for structural support and one for electrical, as these are illuminated. The lettering for the signage could be channel letters and mounted individually. There is no exposed metal on the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was very pleased with the revised design. She stated that when the colors are darkened on the walls, also darken the stone that is used. Mr. Yamasaki stated that a material board will be presented to the Commission at a later date. Solar panels are intended to be installed in all ARCO AM/PM projects, including this one. The panels will be tilted to some degree on the pump canopy. Commissioner O'Donnell inquired as to the size of the signage, which is 2'. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the scale seems to be bigger than what fits the building. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve preliminary plans excluding signage and landscape plans, subject to submission of color board. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 9 err► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 Amendment APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WESTFIELD CORPORATION, INC., 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 12" Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1748 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations and parking structures, Westfield Shoppingtown. LOCATION: Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. 3 Dave Hoganson, Noreen Bowen, Bill Jackson and Steve Dumas were present representing Westfield Corporation. They have returned to present revised plans to the Commission. Steve Dumas stated that they have looked at some of the previous comments made by the Commission. They have modified the signage, modified the signage location, redesigned the parking structure, looked at canopy elements at the entrances, revised parking structures and elevator towers, revised the mid-building elevation and provided the new Marie Callenders' entrance. They have provided a trellis element and reduced the amount of exposed glass . Signage will go over the entrance. They have changed the stone in front of Ruby's. There will be elements of cleft-face quartzite in warm neutral colors with bands of copper slate that will provide sheen and color. At the center area, this may be reversed for contrast. There are painted metal caps and trellis elements in rusted red color. The signage will be muted green with quartzite and copper bands. The tower on the parking structure has been reworked, but have kept the Southwestern motif. They have simplified the design and kept it more like the original submission. Earlier, there was a sun shade structure planned but they didn't like the way it looked and decided to tone it down and make it more in the "Wrightian" style. There was concern about the sun deteriorating the shade and that it would have to be replaced fairly quickly. A trellis element has been added in place of the sun shade. The colors for the parking structure are green and dark cream painted concrete. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that the entrance looks great but it needs something rather than just a sign. She suggests adding vertical fins and also commented on whether they could do something more interesting with the JC Penney entry, as a lot of people use it. She suggested bringing out the trellis element for shade. She noted that the changes that were made on the parking structure were not what she was thinking. Commissioner Hanson drew a sketch of a parking structure and gave it to Mr. Dumas. The parking structure is an entrance to the building so she feels that they should emphasize similar forms. She suggested making the elements the architecture, instead of the color. Use some of the metal details that are being used throughout the project to add color to simplify the structure. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about what he sees in plan and what he sees in elevation of the parking structures. It looks like it is very flat. He suggests more than a 6" step. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the color variation on the elevation is deceiving. Some of the areas are precast panels with integral colors and you will not get those kind of vivid colors. He is concerned about the lack of shade on the upper part of the parking structure. There are certain elevations with very stark concrete sections. Commissioner O'Donnell is not only concerned about shaded parking but for the architecture of it. There is no softness in the parking garage architecture. It is very angular. There needs to be something because of the massiveness of it and there is an opportunity to put some trellises on the top, not only for shading but perhaps even for promoting some plant growth with bougainvillea, which has been done successfully at another parking garage here in Palm Desert. These trellises do not necessarily have to be on the perimeter, but may be more on the interior portion of the structure. This could tie into the trellis work at the entries of the shopping center. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he likes the roof projections but the building elements could go up a little bit higher with deeper projections. The JC Penney entrance could use some more architectural treatment. These improvements are more of a signature and maybe they can be embellished more than what they are right now. They are improvements, but they can be taken a little bit further with them. The scale should be correct. The soda machines at the entrance near JC Penney should somehow be integrated into the mall design. Also, site lines have been helpful. G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 11 �rrr" �wil` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that the approved deck was going to be 50'-60' closer than the one proposed. The old deck was further east, which brought it closer to the residential area. Part of the discussion is going to be was whether the site line of the residential area going to be any worse with this now three-story deck, as opposed to the original two-story deck that was approximately 60' closer. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the roof forms go all the way around the upper entity. The roof should drop back a significant amount. He also expressed concern about the stone being too subtle. He suggests making sure that it has enough texture so the stone does not look like concrete at a distance. The overhang needs to be looked at. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the signs are 5' in height for tenant signs and 9' in height for monument signs. He wonders why there are so many mall signs when it's very obvious when you drive by it. There are two proposed signs on Town Center Way, which is too much. Commissioner Hanson commented that while the signs themselves are large, they are nicely done. The materials are nice. The signs are attractive and they tie in with the architecture of the entrance. Subject to eliminating the corner sign, she would not have any trouble approving this. It's important to have the signage at the entrances because that indicates that it is the entrance to where you are going, but having a sign on the corner is not important. Everybody can see the signs for Macy's and Robinson's, etc... Dave Hoganson suggested separating the building and signage issues and the parking structure issues. He is concerned about the loss of any signs. He stated that there is a very large transient population here in the desert who do not necessarily know where the mall is. With respect to the parking structure, it is our issue on a collective basis. We have one design that was approved and now we are trying to make alterations which really are intended to accommodate more long-range expansion plans for the shopping center, hence the increased height. If the Commission is comfortable in having Westfield move forward on the architectural plans and signage at a staff level, they would be more than happy to come back with a courtesy review. Westfield needs the tools to move forward, finish the leasing and finalize the financing. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this matter could be broken into two parts. The architecture and signage could be one part and the second part could be the parking garage. Any comments that the Commission members might have regarding the architecture and signage with any changes in advance of final approval to give Westfield G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011 113.min.wpd 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES some guidance, the members could fax the information to Steve and he in turn could fax it to us. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant preliminary approval of the revised building entry elevations and monument signage, subject to deleting the proposed sign at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Town Center Way and design refinements to be provided to the Architectural Review Commission. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Gregory absent. Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for continuance for preliminary approval for the parking structures was made with direction to tie the architecture of the parking structures in with the building entries. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LEW BISHOP, ARCHITECT, 44-645 San Onofre Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for 3,794 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: 73-330 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that there is an existing vacant lot between two existing buildings. This building is being modeled after the Homme Building on Monterey, in terms in texture and color. The vacant lot behind the building is being purchased by the client as well. Commissioner Hanson stated that the 3%2' access walkway that runs from the front of the building to the rear should be 48". The rooftop equipment is located on the lower roof. Mr. Lew Bishop, Architect, stated that he could add a second parapet for the rooftop equipment. Commissioner Hanson stated that the windows upstairs seem tall. There does not seem to be a lot of room for rafters. She suggested adding a beam across the top to add some interest. Commissioner Hanson suggested "jazzing up" the rear elevation, as this is where the customers will be parking. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR01 11 13.min.wpd 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic suggested that in keeping with the style of the architecture, the upper windows should be farther apart than they are. They are only 6" apart, therefore it will read like one long, narrow opening. This is not in keeping with this pueblo-style of architecture. He suggests increasing the space by placing the windows 18" apart. He also suggests bringing the windows down a bit. The space on top of the windows looks tight and it will look even tighter if the windows are spaced further apart. Mr. Bishop stated that he does not want to space the windows out and wants to keep them as a cluster, however, he is flexible with his plans. He would like to keep the cluster of windows and add brown trim in between the windows. He will drop the windows down about 8" in height and put an exposed header across the top, which will be painted brown. Commissioner Vuksic also commented that the windows should be set back into the walls. He suggested staggering the two-story parapet. Mr. Bishop stated that he is right at his minimum, but he could add another 6"-8" to the left-hand side. He has a client request for 11, ceiling height. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it seems like the building is "begging" for this section of roof to be dropped down more than one foot. Commissioner Vuksic suggested articulating the rear elevation. He also commented on the single piece of glass on the lower level. There will be a sign that hangs behind the glass, which is considered signage unless it's three feet behind the glass. The sign is very contemporary and does not fit in with the style of architecture on the outside of the building and will therefore be displayed behind the glass. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the space for signage and wanted to know how he was going to get signage in either of those spots. Mr. Bishop stated that the signs will be painted lettering. Commissioner Vuksic also commented on the sides of the buildings, which are very visible from other buildings. One side will face the open space. Mr. Bishop stated that he will take pictures of this elevation. Commissioner O'Donnell inquired as to whether the parapets are going to be as sharply defined as the drawings. He would like to see more of the details. Commissioner Hanson would like to see a color board. Mr. Bishop will bring in a color board. The colors are going to be beige with dark brown trim. Mr. Knight stated that he cannot suggest preliminary approval on the landscaping as he has not reviewed a landscape plan. The Parking Lot G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsW9min\AR011113.min.wpd 14 e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES Tree Ordinance needs to be considered, as well as the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic for continuance and request the applicant to present a color board, more details, drop upper windows 8" from top, articulate rear elevation and submission of landscape plans. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 01-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SABBY JONATHON, COOK STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 120, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ALLEN SANBORN, SANBORN ARCHITECTURE, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised architectural plans for 16,000 square foot office/industrial building and landscape plans. LOCATION: 42-595 Cook Street ZONE: O.P. The preliminary and final drawings have already been approved for the office building at 42-595 Cook Street. There have been some changes. It was formerly a concrete building and will now use stucco with the same features and same location for features. On the Cook Street elevation, there will be a deletion of windows and on the west where there were 14' overhead doors, are now 12' doors. Action: Upon reviewing the revised preliminary architecture plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 15 Aaw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2001 MINUTES C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: ART JORDAN, 6150 N. 161h Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85016 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of revised glazing for office/industrial complex, UNIVERSITY COMMERCE CENTER. LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, east of College Business Park ZONE: PCD Action: Upon reviewing the glass samples submitted by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission approved by minute motion two samples (spandrel and regular grey glass) and suggested that the applicant look for less reflective glass for accent glass on sides of stair elements and glass on the second floor. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011113.min.wpd 16