Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-23 err✓ CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES October 23, 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 4 Richard O'Donnell X 12 3 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 17 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development 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 9, 2001 Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the minutes of October 9, 2001. The motion carried 6-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP 00-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PRIME RESIDENTIAL, LLC, 77 West Wacker, #4200, Chicago, IL 60601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a 306-unit apartment project, CANTERRA APARTMENT HOMES LOCATION: South side of Hovley Lane East, 1400 feet east of Portola ZONE: PR-17 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval subject to comments from the Landscape Manager, which were made on the plans. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 00-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KENNETH BARTON, FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES, 2322 West Third Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057- 1906 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscape plans for gas station, convenience store, and car wash, EXXON/MOBIL LOCATION: 36-650 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval excluding signage lighting and subject to comments made by the Landscape Manager, which were made on the plans. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: SA 01-122 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DGI SIGNS, INC., PO Box 1770, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage varying from the approved sign program for DOMINO'S PIZZA LOCATION: 77-900 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC (3) Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 01-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WHITEHAWK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 42-600 Caroline Court, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval for an exception to build a chain link fence LOCATION: Whitehawk Gated Community: Barrington, Westbrook Court, Eastwood Lane, and Cheviot Court ZONE: R-18000 Photographs included in the Staff report were reviewed, including a brief description of the nature of approval sought. Mr. Alvarez stated the Whitehawk Homeowners Association is requesting the installation of a chain-link fence around the overflow drywall pit area to secure it from children who may be playing in this area when it floods. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the ordinance basically prohibits the use of chain- link fencing and requires a decorative material, such as wrought iron. The staff recommends the applicant use wrought iron fencing or tubular steel fencing consistent with the ordinance. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 3 e err° ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 MINUTES Barbara Bale, Certified Community Association Manager with the Monarch Group representing the Whitehawk Homeowners Association, stated that the retention basin has been present since the project began and it has never been fenced. It is the concern of the current Board of Directors as there are times when the overflow ditch fills with water, which can be up to one foot in depth. The area is not an official recreation area. There are no picnic benches or play equipment near the area. However, families in the community do utilize the area with their toddlers. The Board is concerned that this overflow ditch presents a dangerous situation, therefore, they would like to have the area fenced. They do not want to spend a great deal of money. The area that they wish to have fenced is sunken and not visible from the street. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Riverside County Health Department requires wrought iron or tubular steel fencing for swimming pool areas and they have specific requirements on the height of the fencing and the distance between the pickets. The fence is designed in such a way so that the likelihood of a child getting a foot-hold, if they were to attempt to climb over it would be rather minimal. Commissioner Gregory was concerned that in the effort that the Whitehawk Community is making, they should conform to the county ordinance even though the ordinance actually applies to swimming pools. Considering the relatively small distance of the length of the fencing, the difference in cost between modular tubular aluminum or steel fencing vs. chain link would probably be a few hundred dollars. Commissioner Gregory highly recommended using tubular steel or wrought iron fencing, not only for aesthetics but also for safety. The fence must be 48" high and all the way down to the ground, outside the masonry structure. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations presented by Staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Commission denied the exception to use chain-link fencing and approved the use of wrought iron or tubular steel fencing. Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSJ: GARY DeFREITAS, WESTVEST, 3991 MacArthur Blvd., #350, Newport Beach, CA 92660 THOMAS HERNANDEZ, DESIGN CLASSICS, 66-605 Thunderbird Lane, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 (fax 288-3738) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings for 3-unit townhouse building LOCATION: Southwest corner of Sunset Lane and Abronia Trail ZONE: R-3 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval subject to comments from the Landscape Manager, which were made on the plans. Motion carried 6-0. 6. CASE NO.: PP 01-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD PRICE &ASSOCIATES, INC., 27127 Calle Arroyo, Ste. 1905, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, Attn: Emily NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final landscape approval, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE. LOCATION: 74738 & 74740 Hwy. 111, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ZONE: PC-4 Mr. Alvarez indicated that the final landscape drawings have been reviewed by Mr. Knight and he noted a few minor changes. Mr. Alvarez recommended the Commission approve the plans subject to the comments. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentation submitted by Staff, the Architectural Review Commission granted final approval subject to the Landscape Manager's comments and having Commissioner Gregory review the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA by Commissioner O'Donnell. Motion carried 4-1-1with Commissioner Lingle opposed and Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. & MRS. BUTLER, 133 Chelsea Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architectural plans for a 2,366 square foot duplex LOCATION: 74-230 Candlewood Street ZONE: R-3 Suggestions and conditions were made to the applicant. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the master bedroom slider that comes out to the side yard be moved to the backyard to open up to the rear yard landscaping. This would open up the master suite to the backyard and put the windows that were originally intended for the rear, to the side. The applicant was concerned about having plenty of wall space. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the shallow pitched roof across the back portion of the house. It is labeled as "cap sheet" and wanted to know if the was going to be installed over the "cap sheet." In the front part of the project the trim should be changed. It should be replaced with wainscot, which should be returned back to the slump- block walls using stucco material. Commissioner Gregory stated that the landscape plans should be re- submitted for Staff approval. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell granted preliminary approval subject to (1) trim should be wainscot to the ground and returned to block walls, (2) upgrade landscaping per comments made by the Landscape Manager, (3) all roof needs tile. Also, a suggestion was made to relocate sliding glass windows to the rear of the building to open up master bedroom to rear landscaping. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 6 NOW *400' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., PO Box 673, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 44-555 San Rafael LOCATION: 44-555 San Rafael ZONE: R-3 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff, the Architectural Review Commission continued the case to allow the applicant to incorporate recommendations made by the Commission and the Landscape Manager. Commissioner O'Donnell moved for continuance, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-23 (This case was heard before Case No. 2) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., PO Box 673, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 73-811 Santa Rosa Way LOCATION: 73-811 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-2 SO This project was continued from the previous meeting. The Commission reviewed the report prepared by Steve Smith. Comments outlined in the report were the following, (1) building has to be moved up towards the street in order to comply with 20' set-back in the rear, (2) additional landscaping has to be incorporated along Santa Rosa. The building is for Seniors over the age of 62. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 7 `wry° *"001 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA Commissioner Vuksic made comments regarding the following. The air conditioning units are not screened. The carport drawings have not been submitted. He is concerned about all the two-story walls with windows with 2'x4' trim around the windows along with the mansard roof. The roof needs to be done so that architecturally it is not what it appears to be (i.e. a mansard roof). The fascias need to be much richer. The stairway looks very minimal for the style of architecture, which is more Spanish. There needs to be more architecture so that it ties in better. The wrought iron should be broken up with some solid elements. There are opportunities to introduce some elements where some walls are thickened and popped out and that can be done at entry points where there are doors to break up the long lines of roof. The roof is staggered at three different levels but it still is not enough. The mansard roof needs to be sandwiched between some roofs that are complete and that you can see that they are complete. The roof should be articulated in a way so that you don't see the edge of the mansard. Mr. Jackson, representative of applicant, indicated that they would like another 4'-5' in variance on the height of the building or change the pitch of the roof. Commissioner Vuksic remarked that it would look less like a mansard with a shallower pitch. Also, thicker walls are suggested in some areas. The elevator tower has some niches that are created by putting some trim on the wall. This area needs to have a thicker wall with the niche actually going into the wall instead of using trim. Commissioner Hanson made additional comments. There are some very large walkway overhangs with no visible means of support. Each unit has only one parking space with no guest parking. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the ordinance allows for the minimum, which is one space per unit. Commissioner Hanson stated that the way that the site has been developed is nicely done. She would like the roof pitch to be changed to a 4:12. Also, possibly add a few columns under the round portions to support upper walkways. Pick a detail that is more Mediterranean looking. Use tile on elevator tower wall to add sense of entry and importance. Commissioner Gregory made a comment to tie in some of the detail of the building with the parking structure. The water features are integral to the enjoyment of the interior spaces and landscape. Instead of eliminating water feature, select correct plants to reduce water usage. Staff should look at parking issues. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 8 '%W * ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA Mr. Knight commented that the interior environment is twice-over the water allotment allowed, per the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Plant choices and amount of turf need to be addressed. The developer stated this project was originally at 12-unit complex and was asked to downsize it in the interest of not over-crowding the buildings, which has been done. The project is now a 10-unit complex. The lots were difficult to develop as the lots are not rectangular or square. They are attempting to create an environment "within" as the property is not surrounded by high-end product. The developer has added water features and tried to capture views of mountains by putting buildings on the northern side. They will try to create a Mediterranean look when the project is presented with a smooth plaster look with rounded corners and tile work. They have staggered the units so that it does not resemble a long "military barracks row" and put the studio units in the middle to offset the row look. The developer had included guest parking in the initial submission to the staff and they recommended that the parking along the wall on the western wall be removed and that the carports be moved further away from the property line to create more of a planting area, which has been done. The developer realizes that it is important to add some guest parking. Therefore, he moved the carport 7Y2' away from the property line and eliminated the parking along the opposite wall. He would like to move it 5' away from the property line to allow for greater turning radius and add four parking spaces along the western wall. He has been advised by Waste Management to move the trash enclosure to the middle of the wall, rather than at the end so they could back their truck in and have enough room to back up all the way, move the trash cans out, dump them and then drive out forward. This did not appear to be a major issue and could put two guest parking spaces in front of the enclosure and one or two behind it. They are planning to put an intercom system on the entry gate for security purposes. Commissioner Vuksic commented that if the carport is moved 2'/2' from the wall, there is still enough room with the 24' radius to have the width of a car plus another couple of feet for guest parking. Need 5' spacing in between cars if parallel parking. Dave Jackson stated that the entire second floor is going to be cantilevered with the intention of not using the column effect as he finds it to be a negative as it reduces view from the inside of the units. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued the case to allow the applicant to incorporate recommendations made by the Commission and the Landscape Manager. Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 01-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): T. MICHAEL HADLEY, 20 Courtney Circle, Sedona, AZ 86336 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised preliminary architectural plans for office buildings for Robert McLachlan, DDS. LOCATION: 72-415 Parkview Drive ZONE: OP No plans were available for the Commission to review. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved for continuance, seconded by Commissioner Lingle. Motion carried 6-0. 5. 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, car wash, and convenience store LOCATION: 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive, northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Craig Yamasaki, Real Estate Representative, stated that British Petroleum purchased Arco several months ago. Arco is now becoming British Petroleum. As such, British Petroleum is setting forth global G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA designs for North America. Mr. Yamasaki is presenting a "blank slate" that is subject to revision. He is requesting significant tips from the Commission in terms of enhancing the project. Mr. Drell stated that the canopy and the pumps are the most interesting areas and wanted to know if they will actually look like that. Mr. Yamasaki stated that he went to Illinois and viewed the actual pumps, which have the capability of having a 5" color monitor on it. He stated that Arco intends to roll this pump out as their gas pump configuration. This is in the approval process at this point. At this time, the island pump configuration is not available, but should not take too long to accomplish. If this pump configuration is not approved, then the pumps would be of the traditional style. As soon as the new pumps are approved, the facility will be updated to reflect this look. Commissioner Gregory stated that the project is a very attractive and well thought out design concept. The canopy looks good and even the building is attractive in a minimalist sense. Recommends enriching materials, more attention to shade for the summer. Likes asymmetrical idea and getting away from the "canned" look. Mr. Yamasaki stated that he expected to tone down the lighting around the canopy. He stated that he could enhance the project and could use the building fascia elements from the original design and add them to the current design. Add visual interest to the back of the building as it is visible from the street. Commissioner Vuksic suggested creating an enclosure for the roof top air conditioning equipment that adds to the composition of the building. In order to create an interesting composition, you might want to try getting away from symmetry. Would hate to see a tower on each of the four corners. Maybe try to do something asymmetrical. He suggested putting a tower on one side and a really strong horizontal element come out of that and punch across and eliminate the tower on the other side. Start from there and create some volumes that are not all symmetrical. Mr. Yamasaki asked what to do with the blank wall on the south-facing elevation to provide something that would be of interest. Commissioner Van Vliet remarked that he was bothered by the fact that this project was very much against anything that would be acceptable by the Commission and they were trying to come up with solutions to something that he thinks is a very bad design. He did not think that there is any architecture in it and they are starting with this and are G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA trying to take certain components to improve it. Commissioner Van Vliet wants the project to be totally redesigned with some architecture. Mr. Yamasaki stated that he will take the project back to Management and tell them that the Commission hates the design and wants nothing to do with it, stay the course to what they had on the original plan. He will come back with something that will hopefully pass muster. Has had intelligent feedback on the design and is prepared to recommend to Management that that is what you get. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this plan does not incorporate the "intelligent feedback" that we gave Arco on the previous plan. The Commission was given something totally opposite from what they were looking at before and had expected Arco to come back with some of the changes that the Commission had articulated at the last meeting. The current proposal is another generic prototype that does not address the issues of the site, which were the very issues that were discussed previously. The so-called "back" elevation is the most important elevation as it faces the street. This elevation does not have any relationship to the landscaping or any of the issues that were previously discussed, neither do the east or west elevations. Commissioner O'Donnell believes that Arco needs to start over on the plans. Does not have a problem with a contemporary design. The canopy is probably a good place to start and work from there. Commissioner Vuksic thought that the modernist direction was good but is concerned that after the last series of meetings that they went through, that it would be like "pulling teeth" again with Arco. Changes will only be a little bit at a time. The direction of the project is fine but it needs a tremendous amount of articulation. Mr. Yamasaki needs to make a determination as to whether or not it is possible with his time constraints with his developer, as to whether there is a way to make it through this with something that the Commission would be happy with. Commissioner Hanson suggested that since this is a corporate design, she cannot believe that a large corporation would be okay with doing something as simple as this around the country. Why not have something that is interesting, exciting and also offers functionality in a building? That is our challenge to the corporation to make that happen. A contemporary design is fine but not in a rectangle that has no interest G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA whatsoever. You can take the simplicity of a rectangle and make it interesting. It does not have to merely be this box. Think "outside the box". Think interesting. This is going to be their corporate logo and should set precedence. Mr. Yamasaki should go back to the architect and tell them to come up with something a little more interesting that works. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested Mr. Yamasaki take a look at the gas station in Palm Springs at the corner of Gene Autry and Ramon as an example of a canopy that is interestingly connected to the building and the way that it addresses the street. Make the building interesting like the canopy. The current plan will not work. Make the building fit the site. Commissioner Hanson suggesting looking at the Arco gas station that is located on Gerald Ford and Date Palm in Cathedral City. This is a building that has architecture. Mr. Drell stated that there was concern that stucco buildings look "tired" over time and do not stay sharp looking. Enhance the project in a modern direction. Mr. Yamasaki asked if adding bougainvillea along the southern face of the building would provide the kind of articulation that is required. This was not acceptable to the Commission, as landscaping should not be a substitute for architecture. Landscaping should support the architecture. The architecture has to be there first and foremost, and then landscape elements may be used to compliment the architecture. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission may appear to be "picking on" this project so much as it is at the entrance to the City of Palm Desert and wants a nice look. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by Staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued the case to allow the applicant to incorporate recommendations made by the Commission. Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA 6. CASE NO.: CD 00-9 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JIM MADERA, 2842 Roe Lane, Suite 200, Kansas City, KS 66103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of remaining retail buildings on the north end of the center, MONTEREY SHORE PLAZA. LOCATION: Monterey Shore Plaza, Lot 5 Parcel Map 24616, Dinah Shore Drive. ZONE: PC Robert Lauer, Architect, stated that the Lighthouse portion of the project has been approved and is currently under construction. A preliminary review has been done on the balance of the project with some comments. Those comments were regarding the rear (or west) elevation. Comments were to "dress it up" somewhat, as it faces the street. There are some elements that punctuate the facade and add color, therefore, it was suggested to bring in some color elements along the west elevation. There is no longer an outdoor patio along the entire length of the building. Now there is a solid element, which is some glass that encloses the building. Originally, there was an open storage area and it had been suggested by the Commission to block that off. There is no longer an open storage area and is now an enclosed portion of the building. The loading docks are now going to be on the side of the stock room. There is now a mezzanine which houses offices and added some windows. The previous comments from the Commission were to address the west elevation and also address the landscaping along the front. A plan was presented to show the modified landscaping. The grade of the site drops off toward the street. The slab elevation drops down 2' from the Lighthouse elevation. Does not want to grade the area as they want to preserve a line of palm trees. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the difference between the two proposals is that on the old proposal, the north end of the building stepped down as the elevation stepped down. The current proposal shows the elevation seems to be a lot higher than initially was proposed. On the north elevation, would it be possible to get more than 2" in depth on the facade as it is such a large facade and needs to be articulated to at least 6"-8". Commissioner O'Donnell expressed G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 14 *4W01 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA concern about the height of the north elevation, which is 34 . Possibly reconfigure interior of mezzanine and step the building down to first column level. Commissioner Vuksic suggested returning the tallest element on the left-hand side of the north elevation so that it does not look like a stage front. Mr. Lauer stated that all the elements on the construction of the Lighthouse look like the one on the north elevation and these elements are free-standing to give it some depth. The height of the north elevation from the roof line to grade is 34'. Commissioner Hanson suggested the signage on the north elevation have an architectural facade with some dimension for the sign to go on. Incorporate signage into the elements that you have already set precedence for, rather than just tacking it onto the side of the building. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved for preliminary approval, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. Subject to the applicant incorporating recommendations made to address the buildings north elevation and have the Landscape Manager review the landscape plan. C. Miscellaneous 1. Westfield Shoppingtown's Revised Exterior Re-Model Steve Dumas will be giving a presentation to the City Council on Thursday and would like feed back before that presentation on the modified elevations and signage. Steve Dumas was present to talk about the new exterior entries of the mall at the Robinson's May end of the building as well as the JC Penney end. He also wants to discuss the retail space in the center between Macy's and Sears and signage. Has plans for new monument signs for Monterey and Town Center and new multiple tenant signs along Hwy. 111, Monterey and Town Center Drive. He also has new plans for the parking structures. There will be a one-story parking structure adjacent to the residential area as well as a two-story parking structure. Barnes and Noble will hopefully be the centerpiece of the project. This area will be very inviting, open and "glow" at night. Previously, two restaurants had been located upstairs on a terrace, but this has been G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 15 `fir►' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA changed and the second-level terrace has been deleted. He has used horizontal elements and stone elements to create more texture, color and light. Height of building is about the same height as Sears. The second new entry will be similar to this one. At the western end, the soffit will be raised to open this area up more. More glass and stone will be incorporated to add color. They are looking at using quartzite and slate. Commissioner Vuksic suggested making overhangs quite a bit larger for sun protection. The parking structures are designed with a Southwestern theme. The sheer panels and stair towers will be a combination of pre-cast and sculpted pre-cast ribbed to give the effect of stone. Combination of a simple garage with decorative elements at the entryways. The two- story garage with both floors 18' high with the underside painted white. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the architecture of the mall but does not like the parking structure as it seems like it does not relate to the buildings. The structure is too contemporary. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the previous presentation was a very hot issue because of site lines from the adjoining residential property. The parking is now located closer to Monterey Ave. and at a different location abutting the residential area immediately to the north. There were a lot of comments from the residents from that particular site regarding the site views and adjacency and overall use of the parking garage. Now the parking garage is being moved to where it was before, which is closer to the residential units. The parking structure should look more like a building than a parking structure. The architecture of the previous design is preferable. Tie in some of the materials and colors used in the front entrances to the mall. Also, consider having some kind of shade elements on the upper level of the parking structure. The east elevation of parking garage, as it faces Monterey,should have more architecture on that elevation rather than having the stark look of a parking garage. Mr. Dumas stated that signage is simpler and more straight forward using thin-set stone wall material with a cap element in green. The Westfield sign will be pinned-off and will not be internally illuminated. All signs will be externally illuminated. Tenant signage will be at four locations: one at Monterey, two signs on Hwy. 111 and one on Town Center. Could reduce the monument signs from 9' to 6' in height. The Westfield Shopping Town signs have been removed from the buildings, at the request of the Commission. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGENDA Commissioner Vuksic remarked that the signs need "something else". They could use another volume or horizontal element. He is concerned about the use of the stone. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are too many signs. She suggested taking out the current Marie Calendar sign and adding it to the tenant sign. Suggested using flat sections of stone with some ledger stone work. Commissioner O'Donnell would like Mr. Dumas to review all comments made by the Commission and the comments made by the City Council and then come back with a proposal. There is no guarantee that the Commission will approve the signage that they discussed at this meeting. Possibly add planting material to residential side of property. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR011023.min.wpd 17