Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-08 : t y�y,; vyM�' �T� CITY OF PALM DESERT -- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:31 p.m. II. ROLL CALL � Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 1 0 Kristi Hanson X 1 0 Neil Lingle X 1 0 , Richard O'Donnell X 1 0 Chris Van Vliet X 1 0 John Vuksic X 1 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 11, 2001 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the minutes of December 11, 2001. The motion carried 6-0-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 � + � `wrr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP 00-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: ARIEL I. VALLI, 81 Columbia, #200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings of architecture and landscaping for an 88,550 square foot self-storage facility, STOR `N LOCK. LOCATION: 74-853 Hovley Lane East (between Lino's Mercedes and the Post Office) ZONE: S.I. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted final approval, excluding signage. Motion carried 6-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 01-24 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� KEVIN ROSE, 73-841 Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 17'8" roof height for single family residence. LOCATION: 73-841 Shadow Lake Drive ZONE: R-1 12,000 Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval. Motion carried 6-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: SA 01-143 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun St., Indio, CA 92201 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R020108min.wpd 2 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exposed neon on plexi-glass and/or metal backing. LOCATION: 73-721 Shadow Mountain Drive ZONE: R-3 Mr. Smith stated the motel is on the corner of a residential neighborhood. There is a proposed revision to be presented to the Commission, which may be acceptable. The applicant is prepared to use reverse channel lettering, which staff feels is consistent with the neighborhood. The motel does need some identity, however, we do not want to see exposed neon. Commissioner Gregory commented that he met with the owners and they stated that they wanted neon signage. He suggested that they use halo lit signage. This would be very subtle and he did not feel that the neighbors would have any objection to this type of signage. Mr. Smith stated that there is a rock on the corner with signage that is not an approved sign. The Commission did not see any problem with this sign. The landscape has been approved by the Landscape Manager's office. Commission Gregory felt that a rheostat should be required to control the light. Action: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural Review Commission by minute motion granted approval subject to the use of reverse channel lettering and rheostat to control light level. Motion carried 6-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 01-149 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CALENDAR GIRLS, 73-885 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of identification signage. LOCATION: 73-495 Highway 111, NORWALK FURNITURE ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020108min.wpd 3 r � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 8, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Alvarez stated that there is a sign proposai for the new Norwalk Furniture store. There are three signs, two of which are non-illuminated with gator foam letters. The illuminated sign will be facing the parking lot, which is on the west side. It will consist of reverse channel letters, halo lit, bronze. Staff has a problem with the size of this sign. The logo has reverse halo lighting. Commissioner Hanson commented that the signs in general seem too large. The building has such strong architecture and she would like to see the sign represent more of the architecture than just a sign that is attached on to the side of the building. She feels that something has to be done to make the logo work with the architecture. She stated that she can't see taking this building and sticking a typical sign on it. It will not do the building or the sign any justice and this would be disappointing. Something needs to be added to make it "pop" a little bit and make it a little more creative. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that an option would be to downsize it substantially. June Wachs, Calendar Girls, was present and stated that this is the logo that the furniture store uses and they are unable to be creative with it. She stated that the color on the photographs that were distributed to the Commission are not true colors. The color is actually not as bright as the color on the photos and is a deeper red against a deeper background so it doesn't "bounce out" as much at you. It doesn't look as big on the actual building as it does on the photos. The strokes on the letters are so thin that the smaller you make it the harder it will be to see it from a distance. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the size is too big. The sign locations on the east and south elevations lack a lot of consideration to the architecture. He commented that one of the most pleasant sites that he sees everyday when driving down San Pablo is viewing this building, which is one of the nicer new buildings in Palm Desert. He felt that the signage does not give the building the same kind of consideration from the point of view of the placement of the signage and also the size of the signage. The signage on the west elevation is too large. He inquired as to whether there is a possibility that the logo could be separated from the text. For example, could the logo go on the side panel? Also, could the signage on the east and south elevations be vertical, instead of horizontal? G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd 4 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 8, 2002 MINUTES Ms. Wachs stated that as this is a trademark logo and has not been given much creative freedom with it. The owners were very specific and firm with what they wanted. She commented that if the signs are smaller and the lettering is vertical, it would be hard to read. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is a high visibility corner and he does not feel that it will be difficult to read signage, regardless of where it is placed, within limits. The Commission is asking to give the building a little bit more consideration when it come to the signage. They want the building and the signage to look like they were designed together. Ms. Wachs stated that she will speak to the owners about making some creative changes. She stressed that the weight of the lettering is so light and thin that she is concerned about visibility if the size is reduced. Commission was prepared to continue the request to allow the applicant to have the opportunity to incorporate some of the suggested modifications. Ms. Wachs indicated that since her client would not appeal a continuance it would be preferable to have a denial. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to deny the proposed sign program for the following reasons: (1) The special architecture of this building requires a unique creative sign solution which is not provided in the current request. (2) The signs as proposed are too large for the proposed location on the building. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioner Vuksic and Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: RV 01-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DANA B. CARNES, 43-550 Palmilla Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of RV screen. LOCATION: 74-015 Aster Drive ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd 5 . , � �,r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 8, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Alvarez stated that there are photographs in the packets of the RV screen, which is not an approved structure. The existing screen is as high as the RV and is parked in the applicant's side yard. According to the ordinance, the applicant would not have to go to this extent as it is behind a 6' wall in a side yard behind the eave of the building. The applicant put up this screen on the property line, which violates the setback limits. Mr. Alvarez stated that the design and look of the structure does not fit. The applicant is present requesting that you consider this screen located at the corner of Aster Drive and Portola. The property owners in the surrounding area have been notified without any response. The applicant, Dana Carnes, was present and stated that the screen is 12' in height. He stated that he took into consideration all the various shade covers and structures that were on Portola before he erected this particular screen. Commissioner Gregory commented that there is an unplanted landscape area outside of the wall. He suggested a tandscape solution to help screen the structure by planting some tall-growing, tightly knit shrubs running down the length of the property line. He also suggested adding a trellis on top of the wall to help screen the structure until the landscaping matures. He feels that there could be solutions working with the existing wall and with the 4' wide planter outside the wall. Commissioner O'Donnell disagrees. He stated that he does not see how he could screen an RV that is 12' high. With the visibility in this location, there is no way to screen this structure. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the RV should be parked off site. He does not feel that the Commission will be able to find a solution to this, whether it be a landscape solution or any other kind of solution because of the size of the RV and the location. Mr. Carnes stated that the RV meets the criteria of the City in regards to its size, width and height. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if he had applied for a permit, he would have been denied. This would have saved the applicant from what is going on now. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he cannot see how we could, under any circumstances, find a solution to mitigate what the applicant is trying to do. Commissioner Gregory commented that he would like to see another suggestion on paper as far as a means to mitigate this. He would like G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminb4R020108min.wpd 6 ' , � ",� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES to know if the City has some long-term plans to do some work on the planting area that runs along Portola on the outside of the fence. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about the precedent that this would set, therefore making it impossible for him to agree to this. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if he takes the entire structure down the RV will be visible from the street. Mr. Alvarez stated that the applicant has the option of landscaping the side yard or add a trellis structure (not to the property line). Mr. Carnes suggested taking down the structure and draping the fabric directly over the motor home. He commented that there are all different colors of screening throughout Palm Desert including white, terra cotta, royal blue and green. He would like to know how everybody else is getting by with the different color combinations. Commissioner Lingle commented that the applicant is here and the others are not. He stated that the Commission is charged with the responsibility to make sure that things are aesthetically pleasing to the community. Mr. Alvarez quoted the City Ordinance as saying, "...permitted and non- permitted uses of recreational vehicles within an enclosed building or carport conforming with operations, restrictions and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in rear and side yards as follows. In the rear yard, if located in a side yard so long as no part of the vehicle projects down the front roof line of the house and be screened from adjacent lots and streets by a solid fence, wall, gate, door, shrubbery, hedge or combination thereof to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission." Mr. Smith stated that the item could be continued until we have a proposed solution from the applicant. What he has heard today is that the existing solution, which he proceeded with without approval is not acceptable. He has heard from the Commission that he could try to provide a landscape solution in the unplanted area between the sidewalk and the wall. He has heard from some of the Commission members that landscaping may not work. If he chooses not to proceed down that path, then he could appeal the denial of the tent structure. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant would have to make his mind up on that appeal within (15) days from today. The action to deny the existing structure and request that the applicant come back with a different solution is appropriate at this point. If he chooses not to come back with another solution, then he could follow the appeal procedure. The G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd � . , �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES applicant would have (15) days to file the appeal and if no appeal is filed, then Code Enforcement would give him (10) days to take down the structure. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to deny the existing structure as not being adequate to meet the requirements of the City Ordinance and requested that the applicant come back with a more visually attractive solution. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., P.O. Box 473, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans and landscaping for a 10-unit apartment complex at 44- 555 San Rafael. LOCATION: 44-555 San Rafael ZONE: R-3 Mr. Smith stated that the Santa Rosa and San Rafael projects are similar. The applicant has returned with revised plans. The Santa Rosa project is now a 12-unit (studios) project. The project on San Rafael remains a 10-unit project. The applicant has revised the elevations as shown on the plans displayed, which were received yesterday. The applicant met with Commissioner Vuksic who gave him some additional ideas. Mr. Smith is not sure if anything has been revised as a result of that meeting. Commission should give the applicant feedback on the current presentation. The applicant, Mike Filing, was present and stated that he did meet with Commissioner Vuksic and they discussed some items in a more precise consideration, rather than generalities, which he felt were very helpful. Mr. Filing commented that he felt he received some direction, but has not made the changes on the plans yet. Primarily, what was discussed with Commissioner Vuksic was the lower floor to address a larger footprint with a smaller footprint on the upper floor to the amount of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd g . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES approximately 6" and coloring the top and bottom differently. The bottom would have a darker color to give it a bolder look and not have the vertical lines which are presented on the current plans. It was also suggested to expand some of the fascia in width so that there is 8"-10" to work with. Also, the back of the building would have a pop-out gable or shed effect. The windows and doors will be recessed instead of popping them out to get some relief and a bolder look on the exterior rather than trying to bring the windows and the doors out. Mr. Filing feels that he can address these issues and have them ready for the next ARC meeting. As the configuration of the project has been changed (size wise) he feels that it was a good opportunity to take another look at the project. The changes should be more acceptable to the Commission and make it a better balanced project. Mr. Filing commented that pillars were considered on the porch area. He did not want to block any of the view which they are trying to create, however, looking at the buildings from the end it is a little bit deceiving where there is a 4' overhang and then you see something out in front of it. He feels that they may add pillars on each end on the San Rafael project because of its straight line. The Santa Rosa project is staggered and there is a balcony so he felt that pillars would interfere with the view as it cuts across diagonally. Mr. Filing stated that he was open to any suggestions that the Commission might offer. Commissioner Vuksic explained that on the Santa Rosa project, instead of adding trim details around all the windows he suggested picking spots to do something to pop out some elements to create some shadowing and break down the scale (i.e. shed or gable elements). He also suggested that instead of putting trim around the remaining windows, recess the windows. Mr. Filing stated that on the back of the building it was suggested to create a gable effect with some sill work and recessed windows. This would achieve the same purpose as popping the windows out. The doors would also be recessed, which would create a shadowing effect and pick up a bolder fascia which matches the roof. Also, he intends to use different colors on the upper and lower levels and maybe an accent color for the fascia, which would really give it some "splash" and a classier look. Commissioner Vuksic commented that these changes would eliminate some of the vertical feel for the project. Commissioner Gregory commented that on the San Rafael plan, unit#1 has a corner right on top of the curb and it would look like a mistake if it G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd 9 _ , q�' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES is built that way. If there is some way this could be slid over it would create some space there. Commissioner Hanson commented that she still had strong feelings regarding the walkway on the second floor. She suggested adding a few columns under the walkway for emotional purposes so that "it won't feel like you might fall". Commissioner Vuksic stated that the balcony does not have any support and is at a loss on what could be done there. He is not sure how sensitive of an issue it is to some of the Commissioners. Mr. Filing stated that if there is a pillar on the end of the balcony where there is a 4' projection and there are trees planted at the end it would take away from the impact. On the Santa Rosa project, because of the staggering of the buildings there is a different configuration as you look at the overhang of the walkway above. The way the elevator building is arranged and the ramp comes across, it does block the view of that feature. He does not have a problem with the mental aspect of providing a support feature. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he will find that after a while the columns will disappear from view after people who live there for a while get used to them. He stated that he hopes that with all the opportunities that we have had to meet and the suggestions and comments that the Commission members have made, at this point he is hoping that the applicant will take the advice that he has received and apply it uniformly to both projects and would go to the furthest extent possible to satisfy the architectural concerns that the Commission has. He realizes that the applicant has other concerns, such as the site, but the Commission is concerned about the architecture. He is hoping that the applicant will meet all the requirements that have been requested. Mr. Filing stated that he is certainly going to attempt that. He stated that he is trying to get all the information that he can to come up with an agreeable solution. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to make changes discussed with the Commission. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR020108min.wpd 1� , , �r, '�° ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 8, 2002 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 01-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: MIKE FILING, TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC., P.O. Box 473, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans and landscaping for a 12-unit apartment complex at 73- 811 Santa Rosa Way. LOCATION: 73-811 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-2 SO Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to make changes discussed with the Commission under the previous item. Motion carried 6-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 Amendment APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WESTFIELD CORPORATION, INC., 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 12'h Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1748 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised parking structures, Westfield Shoppingtown. LOCATION: Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. 3 Mr. Drell stated that the roll of the Commission is a little different in this case than a typical case. This is a project where the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency is an "investor" in the project. Not only is the Commission acting as a typical regulatory body, they are also acting as a consultant to the bank. Our expectations should be a little higher as we are "half clients". Ultimately the comments made by the Commission will be heard by the board of directors of the bank. The City Council will make the final recommendations to the bank. The City is putting $9.8 million dollars into this project. This is bond money that is already in the bank supported by existing tax increment. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR020108min.wpd 1 1 • , �,,, � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES David Hoganson, Vice President of Development for Westfield Corporation, presented the preliminary designs on parking structures A & B which are located on the north side in the east and west quadrants of the Westfield Shoppingtown in Palm Desert. The A structure will be referred to as the west structure. The B structure is the easterly structure near JC Penney. The east structure is single level and is adjacent to JC Penney on Monterey. The Macy's Home Store parking structure A (west) is grade plus two levels. Grade to the first level is 18' and above that is 12' floor to floor. The east structure (B) is 18' floor to floor, grade to elevated structure. These design elevations have been redesigned in accordance with the direction given at the last Architectural Review Commission meeting. They really looked at the design elevation for the preliminary design for the Barnes and Noble. They took a step back and attempted to bring the parking structure design more in line with the general architectural statement of the project. Absent from the presentation today are the final landscape treatments, which was approved a year ago. Mr. Hoganson commented on the sheer panels or the larger mass of architecture that will be facing the parking lot and the public right of way. This is predominantly a concrete structure. The sheer walls will be poured in place and conceivably a pre-cast component for the other sections. They plan on using colored concrete, using two different colors (beige and reddish-brown). There are three individual treatments with the reddish areas being a fluted panel with horizontal fluting, the spandrels and the accent features on the sheer panels will have a trowel finish with sandblasting and there are some reveals that are created throughout which are 1'/2" and blasted so that it has an exposed aggregate look. Mr. Hoganson stated that one element that is not clarified is that there are columns that run throughout the garage and will be exposed to the exterior. Whatever the finishes are on the exterior will be maintained across the face, however, the column finishes on the interior will more than likely be stacked and painted to match the interior. Commissioner Gregory inquired as to whether anything was being done to offset the "sea of concrete" on the upper level. Mr. Drell stated that this came up one year ago when they were still working on the Gardens at EI Paseo. He thought that Council would want some sort of architectural relief. When they went to Council they said that they felt that half the spaces are shaded and therefore meet the shading requirement and they did not have an issue regarding having aesthetic G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd 12 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES relief or shade relief. The Commission can continue to recommend having more shade on the upper level. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that at the last ARC meeting, the Commission had brought up the idea of having some trellis work or something done on the upper level to improve on the architecture. Mr. Hoganson stated that it is a question of cost. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a building and he is concerned about architecture. He feels that the trellis structures fit in because they compliment the architecture as well as provide shading. He feels that something should be added to the upper level to provide some relief. He also commented on the idea of having the first level subterranean in order to lower the profile of the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that this would most likely cost a lot more money. Mr. Hoganson stated that they are trying to create levels that are very bright to give the customer a very pleasant and safe feel. He is thinking of using 15-20 foot candle of lighting, which may bring up another issue. He wants the structures to be as light and bright as possible without requiring that the customers go to an elevator. As it is currently designed, the customer can walk from grade directly into either Robinson's May, JC Penney or the mall. At the second level, the customer could walk directly into the center, versus having to go to a central point to an elevator. As long as the parking structure is as wide open as possible, the customer will have a very safe feel. Commissioner Gregory asked whether anything could be done in specific locations with sufficient size and seriousness so that the structure could be softened a little bit with plantings. Mr. Hoganson stated that there is always a budgetary concern. He stated that they will look for any means possible to accentuate the access points so that the customer will see an element that identifies the entrance to the mall. He stated that it would be very easy to landscape the upper levels of the structure in these areas. Commissioner Gregory stated that he should keep in mind that they have to accommodate for drainage and major waterproofing. Mr. Hoganson stated that this could be done with the use of pots, which would be automatically irrigated and structurally supported. Commissioner Hanson commented on how nice the canvas shade structures at Club Intrawest were, which Mr. Drell said were relatively inexpensive. Commissioner Hanson also stated that the light standards on the upper level essentially become a structure in themselves and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R020108min.wpd 13 • . � `,�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES suggested that something be attached to them or around them. Mr. Hoganson stated that they have tried a variety of lighting solutions over the years and they have found that metal halide is the best. Mr. Smith noted that metal halide is a prohibited light source, per code. Mr. Drell s#ated that the light standards will be another 16'-20' in height. Commissioner Van Vliet requested material samples to see exactly what they intend to use. Mr. Hoganson stated that they are 2' x 2' concrete blocks and he will submit these samples to the Commission. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that a lot of the concrete materials get washed out and they may not get some of the differentiation between the materials. Commissioner Hanson stated that the current plans are more along the lines of what she is looking for, versus the previous plans. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the floors of the parking structures line up with the shopping center. Mr. Hoganson stated that the department stores in the mall are 17'/Z' and the parking structure is 18' from the ground floor to the connection of the department store and it will modify or fluctuate based on the grades that exist on the parking structure. If a person was parked on the third level they would have to go down some stairs to get to the mall entrance. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there were some very tall sheer panels that look like they might be 8" or 12" thick, which look awfully thin compared to the thickness of the wall. He felt that they should be more in proportion. The architecture has some horizontal elements and strong verticals and he feels that the trellises would look better if they didn't look like a cap on top of an object. They could be jutted out and not just look like a cap. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the deck surFace on one of the structures is 390' long and another that is 330'. He is asking for shading of these upper decks. Mr. Hoganson stated that he will take it as a recommendation. He commented that his primary concern is customer appreciation and if it makes sense he would certainly move along these lines. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that on the east elevation, the building that is closest to Monterey should have more of a building-look to it because it faces Monterey. He does not feel that it is G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020108min.wpd 14 • . � �;,; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 8, 2002 MINUTES distinguished from the other elevations. He would like to see it somewhat softer and would hope that somehow this elevation could be made stronger but made to look softer from the street side and less like a parking garage element from that end. Perhaps it can be done with a combination of architectural elements and landscape. Mr. Drell commented that the employee parking for the shopping center is at the back of the upper deck during the "season". During the summer, they have enough capacity within the structure to let the employees park under the deck and therefore get to take advantage of the shade during the hottest months. The trellis at the Gardens don't really provide a lot of shade but they do dramatically enhance the visual aspect of it. Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, commented that she needs a copy of the landscape Master Plan. Mr. Hoganson stated that he has only been giving the Commission portions of the project so that he could get input and see if they're on the right track. They will pull the entire project together, which will include the Master Plan and present it to the Commission. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for conceptual approval subject to (1) architectural relief on upper deck (dimensional), (2) re-examination of east elevation of building B, (3) increase thickness of sheer walls, (4) present samples of exterior materials, (5) add landscaping to top deck using planters that have been designed, rather than pots, (6) integrate lighting standards, and (7) design trellis so that it is asymmetrical or other shade device for upper deck. Motion carried 6-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 01-27 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS�: HUGH JORGENSEN, MATINEE TRUST, P.O. Box 2130, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural plans to convert three single family dwellings into office buildings. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR020108min.wpd 15 1 • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES LOCATION: Guadalupe Ave. at Monterey Avenue 73-026, 73-031, 73-040 & 73-041 Guadalupe Avenue ZONE: R-2 (Proposed rezone to O.P.) Mr. Smith presented plans for four lots from the west end of Guadalupe Avenue north of Hacienda to Monterey. This is the only remaining non- office usage along Monterey. The proposal is for a zone change from residential use to office/professional. The existing houses will be remodeled into offices. There will be a single access off of Monterey with a common parking lot being designed within the existing right of way on Guadalupe. The cul-de-sac will be relocated further east. The applicant is re-working the landscaping. The applicant is here today for consideration on the architectural elements of the remodel of the three residential units, as shown on the plans. The applicant, Hugh Jorgensen, was present and stated that he tried to make the project very simple and clean with deep canyon-type architecture and minimum cost in the "face lift" of the architectural changes on the building. The landscape architecture is going to be revised. Mr. Jorgensen would like to know if the basic concept of these buildings (two on the south side, one on the north side) comply within the City's constraints. Commissioner Hanson commented that building A is close to the street and would like one element added to the face to break up the facade. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he could do that. Commissioner Gregory stated that typically what gets sacrificed somewhat in conversion projects from residential to small offices is landscaping because it is not set up for commercial use. He requests that when the landscaping is done that it be beefed up somewhat, especially from the view along Monterey so that the project is "nestled in" and also to provide some screening. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the exterior finish on the buildings. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they will all have a stucco finish with different textures. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020108min.wpd 16 � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that a lot of detail and architectural elements are missing. He felt that there is a lot of concern regarding the landscaping. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval on conceptual level subject to comments. Motion carried 6-0-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR020108min.wpd 1�