Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-23 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 23, 2002 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 11 2 Kristi Hanson X 11 2 Neil Lingle X 10 3 Richard O'Donnell X 13 0 Chris Van Vliet X 12 1 John Vuksic X 12 1 Ray Lopez X 11 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 9, 2002 Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve the minutes of July 9, 2002. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 y 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MAJA RUETSCHI & ROBERT DADDIO, 39-935 Vista Del Sol, Suite 100, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 ROBERT RICCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 4,402 sq. ft. medical building. LOCATION: 44-700 Village Court ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that some detailing was added on the east elevation but asked Mr. Ricciardi why he limited it only to 6", as opposed to 12" as previously requested by the Commission. On the east elevation it was requested for preliminary approval to add 12" of relief and that there would be windows or some architectural detail on the east elevation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he added windows to the space which will be occupied by a dentist. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they had asked for depth in the walls. The windows appear to be nail on with trim around the windows. Commissioner Hanson stated that they had asked for architectural relief. Recessing the windows gave it some relief. Mr. Ricciardi commented that he could recess the windows another 6". Commissioner Vuksic suggested that rather that bringing the windows in he could build the wall out another 6". Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to adding another 6" to the exterior east wall. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 02-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELTA GROUPS ENGINEERING; TODD SMITH for AT&T WIRELESS, 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400, Irvine, CA 92614 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 2 c ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of 77' wireless telecommunications monopalm, which is 88' to the top of the fronds. LOCATION: 72-876 42"d Avenue (Stor America Self Storage) ZONE: S I Mr. Smith stated that Todd Smith, Delta representative, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Hanson stated that on plans it says that the 4'8" screen wall will be painted and textured to match the existing CMU wall. This would be a wood wall which would be plastered and painted to look like a CMU wall. Mr. Todd Smith stated that they plan to extend the wall and match it up with the existing wall. Commissioner Hanson asked if they were making it out of block. Mr. Todd Smith stated that he wasn't sure, but if the Commission wants them to use block they will. Mr. Todd Smith stated that when he first presented this project to the Commission the cell site was located at the northeast corner of the property. This request was denied and he was asked to relocate to another site on the property. They did discuss at a previous meeting that if he relocates to the southwest corner there will be a 12' loss in elevation. This would require a 65' tower plus an additional 12' to compensate for the elevation loss. This would be consistent with the tower to the northwest. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Smith if the Planning Commission will react to this. Mr. Smith stated that there are some code issues that need exceptions. Commissioner Gregory stated that the current proposal is exactly what the Commission had asked from him. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission's previous action had included the addition of an unspecified number of live palms in this area. There is one existing palm, but it does neea additional live palms. Mr. Todd Smith stated that he has not been given a specific number, but he will add live palms. There are a row of palms on the west property line and also a small cluster of one or two in the southwest corner. Mr. Drell stated that Spencer Knight will uetermine the number of live palms that will be needed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 AGENDA Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the diameter of the base of the monopalm will be. Mr. Todd Smith stated that this has not be determined but it will be as narrow as possible and will try to get it as close to 24" as they can. With the height of the monopalm there will be certain engineering requirements that will have to be met. It will be as narrow as engineering can arrange. Engineering said that a 65' monopalm wouldn't work with the 12' loss in elevation. Signal propagation analysis has been done. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the Commission could have the analysis for this particular site. Mr. Todd Smith stated that staff had a copy but it was not very clear. He's going to provide additional copies to illustrate this analysis. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to (1) wall being made of block, (2) addition of live palms, number to be determined by Landscape Manager, and (3) diameter of base of monopalm must be as small as possible while meeting accepted engineering standards. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: SA 02-122 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GALLERY MACK'S, c/o Barbara Keith, 73-130 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA, 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new fabric canopy with signage on existing canopy framework. LOCATION: 73-130 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant went out and took photos of the existing building and awning. The existing awning is black. The applicant is proposing a black and white striped awning with the bottom perimeter being solid black. Commissioner Hanson asked if it could be black and tan stripes with black on the bottom. The applicant stated that the fabric is flame retardant, commercial quality and comes in black and white. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) letter size for signage to be 8" in G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES height, and (2) letter size for address to be 6" in height. Motion carried 6-1-0-0 with Commissioner Gregory opposed. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 02-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM T.J. FOSTER, 40-751 Meadow Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of wall height over 6' in rear yard of single-family home. LOCATION: 40-751 Meadow Lane ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to approve by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 5. CASE NO.: SA 02-109 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANCHOR SIGN, P.O. BOX 6009, Charleston, South Carolina, 29405 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of business signage. LOCATION: 72-885 Highway 111, Palms to Pines Shopping Center East, Tweeter's ZONE: P.C. Mr. Smith stated that previously this request has come before the Commission. The Commission approved the reverse channel letters on both sides of the building (facing El Paseo and facing Highway 111). The applicant is requesting reconsideration on the sign facing Highway 111 so that it is through-the-face channel letters, which means that the whole letter lights up. There is a considerable set-back from the street and it is facing Highway 111. Commissioner Vuksic asked if this would be consistent with Staples. Mr. Smith stated that it would be consistent with Staples. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020723.MIN 5 NOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it will be individual letters and not a can sign. This was confirmed by the applicant. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval subject to signage facing Highway 111 using channel letters and signage facing El Paseo using reverse channel letters. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 6. CASE NO.: SA 02-128 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PARAGON SIGNS, 77-650 Enfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument sign. LOCATION: 42-829 Cook Street, Cook Street Plaza ZONE: SI Don Swindell was present from Paragon Signs and stated that he isn't sure how many tenants will occupy the building. The height of the lettering on the tenant sign is 6". Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the area is bermed approximately 24" and then adding a 6' sign on top of that would make it 8' off the sidewalk and feels that this would be too big for that area. Mr. Swindell stated that a sidewalk is going to be put in and he's not sure what the elevation is going to be. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the sidewalk is already in. Mr. Swindell stated that if it is, then it was just put in last week. Commissioner Gregory asked if the ground could be scalloped in the area where the sign would go to cut the grade down. Commissioner Hanson suggested using a landscape swail. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested re-grading the area to accommodate the sign so that the maximum height of the sign would be 6'6" off the sidewalk. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell for approval subject to (1) monument sign being no more than 6'6" above adjacent sidewalk level, and (2) columns thickened to 16" x 16", instead of 122" x 12". Motion carried 7-0-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 6 I M101 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: TT 30269 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTA MONICA 3 DEVELOPERS, LLC, 1223 Whilshire Blvd., No. 802, Santa Monica, CA 90403 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscaping for sixteen single family homes on cul-de- sac. LOCATION: Jeri Lane @ Shephard Lane ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has addressed conditions 1, 3 and 4 of the actions of May 2002. They've added 2.5 inches of foam trim around the windows for architectural relief. They have discussed the matter relative to conditions 5 and 6, which are shifting houses to avoid having 6' side yard setbacks adjacent to each other and regarding the visual space between the buildings. Commissioner Hanson asked if we're encouraging RV storage in side yards. Mr. Smith stated that he doesn't know whether we're encouraging it, but we are providing for it. Mr. Drell stated that it's very unusual for somebody to accommodate our standards for RV storage. Commissioner Hanson stated that it seems like that's really the only reason to have additional space in the side yard. Having additional space in a side yard doesn't accommodate anything unless it's going to be used for storage. Mr. Cain stated that it's not designated as RV storage. Mr. Drell stated that if it's clear that this is a pre-approved RV storage, then people would be aware that their neighbor may park an RV in their side yard. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that on condition 2, they may meet the Title 24 Energy Conservation Code but he feels that the applicant is being very short-sighted in not having 2 x 6 walls with full wall insulation. It is the responsibility of builders and developers to make the homes as energy efficient as possible and not just meet the minimum standards. Mr. Cain stated that when he was working the with people from Title 24 they looked at many things that would make good, energy efficient homes. The 2 x 6 walls were not something that they felt would make that much of a difference. He did other things that they felt would make GRIanning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 7 fir►` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES a more energy efficient home. The low E windows on all the exterior sides will do much more to save energy than the 2 x 6 walls. They are using R38 in the ceilings and checking to make sure that there is no leakage from the A/C system and they do a special inspection to make sure that they are sealed. The people from Title 24 told the applicant that these are items that lose more energy than the gain you might have going from an R13 to an R19. When he looked at this and considered it, he felt that they were coming up with a better standard. He took the Commission's comments from their previous meeting seriously and having not built in the desert previously, he looked at the energy standards. He has built a lot in cold climates where it's just as important to have a good energy efficient house. He went into the Title 24 issue with a very open mind trying to determine if there are things that he's overlooked or things that he needs to incorporate. When he found out the things that Title 24 recommended to make a better energy efficient house in the desert, that's the avenue that he went to. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the applicant should use R19 as a minimum in the walls. R13 was the standard in the 1970's. He asked about rigid insulation on the outside of the walls. Mr. Cain stated that they are going to be stucco walls. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the applicant discussed thermal break with the people from Title 24. Mr. Cain stated that this was not necessary if he uses vinyl windows. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if he's going to use R38 in the ceiling, why would he use R13 in the walls. Mr. Cain stated that the loss comes from the ceiling. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there are going to be 140' temperatures at the wall surface and R13 is not going to retard heat flow as well as R19, yet R19 with the thermal break on the outside would be that much better. He can't believe that the little bit of money for the 2 x 6's and extra insulation wouldn't benefit the homeowner thereafter in reducing their energy bills. Commissioner Vuksic and Commissioner Hanson reviewed the plans to make sure that all of the conditions had been met. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevations look nice. The drawings show wood fascia boards where they should have plaster. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) eave details being changed from wood to plaster, and (2) subject to approval of Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-1-0-0 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposed. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: MISC 02-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BARBARA ROMANO, P.O. Box 13790, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 6'6" high block wall with 7'6" setback from curb to screen swimming pool in front yard of a single-family home. LOCATION: 48-120 Ocotillo Drive ZONE: R-1 Francisco Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing a block wall within the public right of way at 7'6" from the face of the curb. Staff circulated copies of the plans to the Public Works Department and they responded by saying that they did not want a block wall built in the public right of way, therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the block wall be set back 12' from the face of the curb, which would take it out of the street right of way. The wall height being requested is 6'6" and the code only allows a maximum height of 6', therefore, staff is also recommending that the wall height be 6' with the exception of the stucco arch over the door with would be an additional 18". Staff felt that this would add a decorative element which would warrant an exception to the height restriction. Staff would like to recommend approval of this case, subject to the conditions as above. Mrs. Romano, applicant, stated that she has a problem with the 12' setback. Vincent Banta, contractor, was also present. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the setback is 15'. Mrs. Romano stated that the old wall was setback 15'. The City had come out and said that the wall was not stable since it had been hit and wanted her to have the wall knocked down and build a new one. She is requesting a higher wall due to the headlights which come into her windows. There should be a "Not A Through Street" sign at the beginning of the street because a lot of people use this road to try to get to Highway 74. Commissioner Gregory commented that this could be worked out with Public Works. Mrs. Romano stated that she wants to extend the courtyard area because she has a pool in the front. Commissioner Gregory stated that what they are suggesting is probably a gift if the setback is 15'. Mrs. Romano stated that there's a house on Haystack with a wall that's 7'6" from the curb. Commissioner Gregory stated that the setbacks are different for each street and she is burdened with whatever applies to GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES her. The maximum wall height is 6' and he would like the arch brought down 6". Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the arch has to be so big. Mrs. Romano stated that the door is 7' and she already purchased it. Commissioner Gregory stated that if she brought the arch down proportionately she would probably be okay. Mrs. Romano asked if she could appeal the Commission's decision. Commissioner Gregory stated that she could appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far back the footing is from the curb. Mr. Banta stated that the footing is already dug at approximately 7'6" from the curb. Mr. Smith stated that if she chooses the appeal route, she could end up with a 15' setback. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to (1) wall being no more than 6' in height, (2) 12' setback from curb, and (3) reduce arch over door proportionately. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-02 (A) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANBORN A/E, INC., FOR CANYON NATIONAL BANK, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revised elevation and site plan for a bank and office building. LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club, Canyon National Bank ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith stated that there is not an issue with the bank building, however, the office building has a roof element at 26' high at one corner so it will have to go to the City Council. On the northerly building, the two-story office complex, the main part of the building is 29'. Everything has to be no more than 25 . The clear story element above 25' will be okay if it doesn't take in more than 10% of the floor area of the building. This project has been before the ARC previously. It was approved about one year ago and they've come back with a different architect and revised plans. He pointed out that the sectional garage doors face the Desert Willow golf course. Commissioner Hanson asked what the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 10 ' ►' moo ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES doors are for. The architect, Alan Sanborn, stated that they are for storage for the owner and a garage to park his car. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the building is 26' above slab or 26' above curb. Mr. Smith stated that it's 29' above the pad so they have to come down to 25'. He'll figure out what the average height is along the four adjacent pads and come up with the base elevation and then 25' above that, although we are looking at an amendment in the OP district but this typically wouldn't make it based on the roof design. The roof height will be brought down. Basically, the ARC should focus on the bank building and the applicant will come back with a revised proposal on the two-story office building. Mr. Sanborn stated that he put the open space requirement adjacent to the two-story building so that someone could actually use it and he rotated the bank so that people wouldn't have to park their car and walk across the drive through to get in the front door of the bank. There was a concern with seeing it from the street, therefore, he designed an extended wall element to make it look longer and be able to landscape in front of it while trying to downplay the effect of the drive through. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is a far superior plan to the previous one. Something is lost in the translation from the lower building to the bigger elements. There are some massing issues there as well. Mr. Sanborn stated that maybe in adjusting the height he can tie some elements together. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he really appreciates seeing where the signage is going to go. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Mr. Sanborn did a really nice job on this project. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval of the bank building and continued the office building due to height restrictions. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 02-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT PCS, c/o GIANNI & ASSOCIATES, 106 N. Maryland Avenue, #100, Glendale, CA 91206 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 55' high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent equipment enclosure. LOCATION: Ironwood Park GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN I L ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 Commissioner Hanson suggested having a separate committee to handle all of the wireless telecommunications towers. Francisco Urbina stated that this is a proposed 55' high monopalm with twelve vertical antennae at the southerly end of Ironwood Park. This area contains six existing Washingtonia palms and some natural desert landscaping. They are also proposing to construct an outdoor equipment storage area with a 6'-8' high block wall around it. The top of the wall would match the existing Coachella Valley Water District enclosure. The applicant was only proposing to plant three new live palm trees. The drawing indicates that the six existing palms are dead and have to be removed, however, they are not dead and staff does not want them removed. Staff felt that three new live palm trees were not enough to adequately screen the proposed monopalm from residences to the south and to the east. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that they move the proposed monopalm approximately 20'-25' to the east to allow for the planting of nine new palm trees to screen the monopalm on all sides. Subject to the above conditions, staff recommends approval of the project. Commissioner Gregory asked about the existing palms which are alive. He asked if staff is recommending nine live palms in addition to the existing palms. There are six existing palms so there would be a total of fifteen live palms. Mr. Knight indicated that upon further reflection we don't need fifteen palm trees in this location. The palms could be spaced more accurately and create the same effect with fewer trees. Also, the monopalm should be a Washingtonia palm, not a date palm. Steve Gianni, applicant, stated that he could do that. Commissioner Hanson asked what all this stuff is on the outside of the wall. Mr. Gianni stated that the air conditioning units are visible on the outside of the wall. Commissioner Hanson asked if could be hidden. Mr. Gianni stated that it has to be on the outside of the building. Commissioner Hanson suggested putting the A/C unit on the back side of the building so that it's shielded from the street. Mr. Gianni stated that more people would see it on the back side because it faces Ironwood Park. The street side has one house on it. He stated that he will put a screen wall around it. The equipment shelter will be a masonry building to match the existing wall. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council has indicated a conceptual acceptance of this project and have agreed to the business points of the deal. They did indicate that when we do the public hearing notice G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES on it we will go well beyond our typical 300' feet so that there will be lots of public input. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the Commission stipulate the number of live palms to be added around the cell site. The Commission decided that four additonal palms would be sufficient. Mr. Knight stated that they will have to move the cell site over towards a couple of the existing palms to allow a space to put a palm in between the monopalm and the building. Commissioner Van Wet asked if this is the only possible site for the monopalm. This is a residential area with a park. He wanted to know what the other options are. He only hears that there aren't any because this is the easiest one. Commissioner Gregory stated that the only other space would be in someone's yard. Mr. Gianni stated that his first choice was the S.C.E. compound but there's no room there as there are too many transformers in this area and they would have to use a much taller tower. The proposed site is far enough from the compound so that they can keep the height at 55'. Originally, the engineers wanted the tower to be 60'+. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) adding four live palms, (2) masonry wall to match screen wall, (3) re-locate or screen A/C, and (4) monopalm to be Washingtonia palm instead of date palm. Motion carried 5-2-0-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet and Commissioner O'Donnell opposed. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 02-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SBA NETWORK SERVICES, INC./ CINGULAR WIRELESS, 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of installation of wireless telecommunications monopalm with equipment shelter. LOCATION: 100 Kiva Drive (Bighorn Maintenance Yard) ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that the proposal has been approved by Bighorn. The proposed monopalm is 48' in height. Staff finds this acceptable but are suggesting some additional live palms. G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES The applicant, Doug Kearney, stated that he has some concerns regarding the additional palms. He has gone through several design changes and he can see if they will approve the additional palms since palms are not a part of Bighorn's overall landscape plan. Commissioner Hanson stated that palms are not allowed on that side of the property. They could have a few palms in a courtyard, but not date palms. Mr. Smith asked Spencer Knight why we prefer to add date palms to this cell tower site. Mr. Knight stated that it's really odd when you see a date palm with Washingtonia's. Bighorn makes a very strong effort to maintain what is considered to be more natural plant material. There is nothing native about a date palm. His thought was to add date palms to balance it out. Commissioner Hanson stated that the proposed site is very inappropriate and wants the applicant to find another location. A cell site would be appropriate if they were proposing this on the other side of the street where there are lots of small trees. There are no palm trees anywhere on the other side of the street. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that monopalms are inappropriate in residential neighborhoods. He has asked numerous times to different companies the number of cell sites they have in the valley and he gets no response. Mr. Kearney stated that he could get this information from Cingular. Commissioner Hanson stated that they have been inundated with cell sites from many different companies and they're everywhere now. Mr. Kearney stated that people want coverage in their residences and they call marketing for Cingular and complain that they don't have service in certain areas. Commissioner Hanson agreed that a cell site is needed in this area but the proposed location is not appropriate. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is a board that deals with aesthetics and there is a problem here. He has no problem approving monopalms in commercial and industrial areas so long as they meet all the standards. Mr. Smith stated that unfortunately at the south end of the City we have no industrial or commercial areas. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if he researched the area in the Canyons at the maintenance yard, which is across the street. Mr. Kearney stated that this has been a very difficult area for them. He looked at the BLM land but he would have to have an 80' height because the land slopes down. He looked at the church down the street but they lose so much elevation there that the signal wouldn't propagate at 50'. They looked at Ironwood Park and up Highway 74, which is all residential and they wouldn't meet the separation G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES requirements from Verizon. Mr. Smith stated that they could put another palm near the church. Mr. Kearney commented that they looked at the AT&T site on the hill with the faux rocks and was given the indication that the Commission did not like the design so he avoided this option. Mr. Smith stated that that is not necessarily accurate. ARC did approve it and the Planning Commission was looking for some additional detailing and they had some problems with property ownership. The ARC was receptive to the faux rock concept and it would probably work quite well in this case and get them the elevation that they need. Commissioner Hanson suggested a site on Bighorn Mountain. Mr. Smith stated that the tower on Washington Street at Jiffy Lube had been approved by the ARC and rejected by the Planning Commission and was on appeal at the City Council and was approved. A gentleman who was at the Council meeting on an assessment project issue elsewhere in the City got up and said that nothing is better than getting cellular coverage when you're driving home at night and the item was approved 5-0. The City Council and the Planning Commission have asked that we prepare a master plan of cell sites in the City. A bid will be sent out for the study. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the church site might be a good site because there are so many palms there. A monopalm is already on this site and it is very hard to see as it blends in with the other palms. Mr. Kearney asked if they could redesign the tower and make it a Washingtonia palm. Commissioner Hanson stated that she feels that there are many other alternatives that they have not looked at, including faux rocks on Bighorn Mountain. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kearney if they explored using faux rocks on Bighorn Mountain. He stated that he was directed to the maintenance yard at Bighorn. Mr. Kearney suggested using a cylinder cell that could be painted a desert color that would blend in. There are utility poles that run all along Cahuilla and it may not be noticeable. Commissioner Hanson stated that the whole concept behind what Bighorn did is going to be destroyed in one fell swoop with those palm trees. The entry signage is their main focus and this would ruin their entire concept. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to continue the request to allow the applicant to find a more G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver\wpdoes\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES appropriate solution such as a monopalm at St. Margaret's Church or a faux rock wireless telecommunications structure on Bighorn Mountain. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 02-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE YANKEE WOODSHOP, 74-850 Joni Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 5,580 square foot industrial building. LOCATION: 75-180 Mayfair Drive ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that this project was presented to the ARC about one year ago with a different layout. The applicant has returned with the plan flipped, however, with similar architecture. Bob Ricciardi, architect, was present to answer questions. He stated that Beacon Hill goes up at a pretty steep rate and is flat near Mayfair, therefore, there is an existing retaining wall on the property. He put eyebrows on the glass, used striping on the exterior walls, raised some elements, etc... Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Ricciardi if he could move the service doors away from the street side and relocate them to the adjacent industrial site. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he recessed the service doors so that they're hidden. The building is facing east and is also away from the wind. If they keep the doors closed, it'll look nice. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they won't keep them closed. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the tenants are subcontractors and are coming to work at 6:30 a.m. and don't come back until 3:30 p.m. so the doors are pretty much shut all day. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you're really not going to see inside. The parapet wraps all the way around the building on the plans and Mr. Ricciardi stated that this is how it's going to be built. Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Ricciardi about the reception area, which is facing east. He asked if the parapet overhangs the entry way. Mr. Ricciardi clarified this and stated that it does have an overhang. On the extreme left side of the south elevation the plans show a door. Mr. Ricciardi stated that this is the door to the electric room. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES O'Donnell stated that it looks like a window on the drawings. He asked if the walkway comes all the way over to the door. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the walkway does go to the door. Spencer Knight stated that the original landscape plan "lagged behind" and is asking the Commission not to give preliminary approval until he receives a current landscape plan. At this point, he does not have a landscape plan. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he would like to go ahead with the working drawings and will have the landscape plan at the next meeting. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission can grant preliminary approval of architecture, but it will not be scheduled at Planning Commission until we have landscape plans. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture only and the project will not go to Planning Commission until landscape plans are submitted. Motion carried 6-1-0-0 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed. 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE BRALY TRUST, P.O. Box 949, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 6,220 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-751 Village Court ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the site is on the west side of Village Court backing onto the tennis court area at Embassy Suites. Francisco Urbina stated that most of the parking is in the front of the building with some parking on the side of the building. The exterior has stucco walls in contrasting colors with hip roofs and partial mansard roofs. The architecture is similar to other buildings in the area. Staff is recommending approval of the project. Mr. Smith asked if we have approval from the property owner. Bob Ricciardi, architect, stated that the owner is on vacation and he hasn't been able to get the letter but it is coming. This is the architecture that the owner wants. The property owner kept architectural approval on everything, including landscaping. G:Planning\Donna Quaiverlwpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the architecture is really boring and unimaginative. It's too bad that the owner won't allow the architect to do something more interesting and creative. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he's going to vary the colors so that it has some originality. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the parking structure. Mr. Ricciardi stated that it is a typical parking structure with metal fascia which is similar to others in the area. They're low maintenance and they last. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval of architecture only and the project will not go to Planning Commission until landscape plans are submitted. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 6. CASE NO.: 02-04C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALEX DAVIDOFF, c/o FRANCO POLO DESIGN CO./ 73-375 El Paseo, U4, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of renovation of existing Mario's Restaurant. LOCATION: 73-399 El Paseo, Vintage Garden Cafe ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that this is a remodel of Mario's restaurant on El Paseo. The architect, Frank Laulainen, has made changes on the patio area along El Paseo and expansion of the outdoor dining area on the corner of Lupine and El Paseo. Mr. Laulainen introduced the applicants, Alex and Joanna Davidoff. They would like to add some European flair to this old restaurant. The idea is to create a garden, park-like setting by opening up the building on two sides to bring more light to the inside. They're going to leave the existing shell of the building other than the openings to the patio dining and cosmetically pull the exterior together with awnings, new openings, a good color scheme and a tremendous amount of landscape to create a park-like garden setting. Mr. Smith asked if they were planning to take out the existing front wall and replace it with wrought iron. Mr. Laulainen stated that they are planning to cut the wall down and add wrought iron, which will curl around so it has more depth to it and create a planter look rather than a railing. One of their main goals is to open the restaurant up to El Paseo G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES and make it more people friendly. The roof is a pinkish-red currently and would like it to be a blue-gray color. They are changing the oriental-looking building to a provincial country French theme. The colors are going to be very uplifting and sophisticated. Commissioner Hanson asked why they wanted to add the awnings. Mr. Laulainen stated that they wanted to have more of a controlled atmosphere for the outdoor dining and also to extend the indoor/outdoor feeling to the street. Commissioner Hanson stated that it doesn't seem like it would be very easy to tie the awning into the mansard roof and they appear to be fighting against each other. Additionally, if there's going to be daytime seating on the patio, it's in the shade so it's going to be cool in the winter time. She suggested using planters and trees rather than actually putting a cover over it. Mr. Laulainen stated that the awning is part of the al fresco flavor and goes with the kind of restaurant that they are proposing. Mr. Smith asked if there will be a misting system on the patio. Mr. Laulainen stated that there will be a misting system and also radiant heat. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he likes the idea of opening the restaurant up and Mr. Laulainen has created some wonderful things. However, he's having a little trouble relating some of the neat things that he's done to the existing building. They look like they're fighting each other and he's uncomfortable with it. He realizes that this is a real challenge with the existing mansard roof. Right now it looks like it's going in a good direction, but it's kind of half-baked because of what's being done with the existing elements. Mr. Laulainen stated that it's all a matter of scale and vision. The awning actually helps camouflage the roof. The color of the awning and roof are similar so that it blends in and then becomes part of the sky. Joanna Davidoff, applicant, stated that trees wouldn't look as nice and they intend to plant vines to go up under the awning and use 100 different plants in their landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have never based an approval on the fact that the applicant intends to grow plants all over a structure because that may not happen. Sometimes another business will come in and the plants die and are removed. It's hard to accept landscaping as a solution. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed with Commissioner Vuksic. The roof is out of context. The elements seem to be fighting with the roof. All the other things, with a few exceptions, he loves and feels that this could be a new, interesting place on El Paseo. The mansard roof is a problem. The proposed plans look more like Tuscany than French. Mr. Laulainen stated that they're inter-related. The color of the roof seems like it's up there screaming. Mr. Laulainen suggested using a verdi gris G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES color. He does like the awning on the north side even though it's shaded there. He would prefer to see the awning in segments, as opposed to continuous awning. It can stay the same color but make it longer in spots, shorter in other spots and broken every 10'-12' to break the linear look that you see from El Paseo. Ms. Davidoff stated that the copper green color has already been used by the building next door and she wanted something different to separate the two businesses. Mr. Laulainen stated that he had originally designed the awning in segments and it lacked continuity and emphasized more of the old building. There was also a problem creating areas for signage. Ms. Davidoff stated that everywhere you look you see desert colors and she would like to do something different. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the problem is the blue color on a mansard roof. Mr. Laulainen stated that the colors that they have chosen are a beautiful blend of colors and are going to be soft. Commissioner Hanson stated that there's no question that it's a beautiful blend of colors but the issue is the form on which the color is on. The mansard roof with a little bit of arc to it is the problem. Ms. Davidoff stated that the shape of the roof looks similar to those in Europe and doesn't look Chinese. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is a lower profile building than ones that you see in Europe. Usually the mansards are on very tall buildings. Ms. Davidoff stated that by adding the large 8' high French doors on the patio, they are trying to expand the space optically. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's concerned about the plant material working the way they're proposing. The applicant is proposing very large trees in very small planters, which would be a problem. They will also have to comply with the City's water efficient landscape ordinance. Commissioner Hanson suggested using more of a floating/casual awning or trellis structure so that you don't have to tie into the roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned about the long horizontal lines. If they eliminate the middle band of awnings it may make it go away altogether. Commissioner Gregory stated that he is very concerned about the proposed landscaping and how it's going to work. Right now he sees a lot of pretty stuff, which he knows won't work and wants to make sure that what they propose will work. This will influence the hardscape layout, where the pots go, how they relate to circulation for dining, etc... G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) re-consider roof color, (2) consider using a casual awning or trellis structure in outdoor dining area along El Paseo, and (3) eliminate long horizontal lines. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 7. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 01-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILEY/CARVER, LLC, c/o The Carver Company, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of design guidelines and conceptual landscape plan. LOCATION: 34-000 Monterey Avenue (Southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore) ZONE: PC Martin Alvarez stated that the Commission has received a site plan and a landscape plan to review. He wanted to give the Commission an idea on where staff is regarding the design guidelines and is asking the Commission for comments. A traffic study is being prepared which will give us a lot of answers on internal and external circulation for the site. He is asking the Commission to look at the conceptual landscape plan. Staff is comfortable with recommending approval of the plant pallet, which has been reviewed by Spencer Knight, Diane Hollinger and the landscape architects. Bill Carver stated that this is a conceptual landscape plan and he's looking for approval of the plant material and how they plan to lay it out. With respect to the design guidelines, he is looking for guidance and is asking if the Commission would like to make any changes. Every building will come back to the Commission and the guidelines are designed to help analyze the actual buildings when they come back. Mr. Alvarez stated that the whole site has been shifted over an additional 80' giving it a 210' setback from the curb to allow for a greater opportunity to slope the area. Robert Curley, landscape architect, stated that he has revised sections for the areas along Dinah Shore, Lucas Way and directly at the corner of Lucas Way and Dinah Shore where they will address 3:1 slope concerns at that corner. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 21 *awl *000 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Alvarez stated that the landscape design is being reviewed by staff and will eventually come back to the Commission as a preliminary plan. Commissioner Lopez stated that the one thing that he suggests doing the water calculations now. Try to do some scenarios on how many trees will be planted and categorize them first. When they get to the end they may find that they may have to do some major revisions. Commissioner Gregory stated that the tree list is extensive and interesting. He is concerned that the vastness of the site gives them an opportunity to use a lot of different materials and make it more interesting. However, the shrub pallet actually shrunk from the previous plant list submittal and he was curious to know why. Mr. Curley stated that he's been going back and forth with Mr. Knight and Ms. Hollinger and it's been a weeding process. Ms. Hollinger suggested going back to the prior plant pallet. Mr. Curley stated that he can add things back in. Commissioner Gregory stated that he doesn't want this to be a road block but would like it to be something that he can build on. Mr. Curley stated that he'll find the other list and run it by the Commission again. Commissioner Gregory commented on some of the trees in the parking lot. The sweet acacia trees are not user friendly. This is not a great tree to brush up against in the parking lot. Mr. Knight stated the trees are contract grown and they may not be able to deliver a product that's high enough to be used in a parking lot. Mr. Curley stated that he's going to make sure that everything they specify they're going to be able to obtain it at the size and quantities that they need before the final plans are submitted. Commissioner Gregory stated that the other huge concern that he has is the parkway landscaping where they have large fields of specific types of shrubs and ground covers. The first problem is that it works against the design vernacular. It's like they're taking a coastal type way of addressing a large landscape area and applying it to a desert situation and just changing the plant names and spacing. He knows they're going to have a hard time with the parkways. Some areas are 80' deep and hundreds of feet long and it's all acacia rediand. Aesthetically, that's one concern. Another concern is culturally. As time goes by at some point it's going to become a warren for little critters. He made a trip to Scottsdale and they were ripping out all their acacia because they found that rabbits and rodents loved to live in there because they had shelter from predators and it caused a real problem for the City. We don't mind if you use it in limited quantities but if you use acres of acacia, it might be a problem in many ways. Some other plants are being planted in large areas that may not even be zoned for this area. He's concerned about using a plant that's typically G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES not used here and they show it covering an extensive amount of area. We don't want this to become a problem in such a prominent location. The Commission could give conceptual approval for the plan exclusive of the parkway plantings. He would like to see details at the next meeting. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this site is close to both Costco and Home Depot. He wanted to know what we can reasonably expect for shading due to the wind. The trees at Costco and Home Depot have to be pruned to the nub so they don't blow over. Mr. Knight stated that the trees in the Costco parking lot are not maintained properly and are topped. Commissioner Gregory stated that it'll take four or five years before the trees at Wal*Mart and Sam's Club produce shade. Mr. Knight stated that the location in respect to the parking lot stalls is atypical. On this plan the tree planters are located in a way that they straddle a middle line as opposed to being at the head of two stalls. Basically, it creates four small compact parking stalls and in a typical plan it only creates two short parking stalls. Commissioner Lingle asked if they could put in bigger trees to provide shade sooner. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's impractical in a large scale and the trees will grow. Desert type trees grow very quickly. The major problem is the roots keeping up with the above ground branching. If you allow them to branch as quickly as they want to grow, then the winds come up and they blow over. This is why they have to be pruned back a lot in the beginning to allow them to have more root growth to stabilize the tree. Mr. Curley stated that they are being held to a 24" box standard. Mr. Knight stated that he's not holding them to any standard. Mr. Smith stated that 24" is minimum, although we have used 15 gallon Chilean mesquite because of their quick growth. Mr. Knight stated that a 15 gallon tree is much more vigorous and will root better than a 24" box and a 24" box will root better than a 36" box because they eventually become root bound and they won't grow outside of the box that they've been growing for most of their life. Even though you may have to wait 4-5 years to get some kind of reasonable shade, you probably won't ever see that from a tree in a 36" box. The trees will have to be triple staked in the parking lot. Mr. Knight stated that they can't use metal ties. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the proposed entrances to the shopping center is awful and doesn't work. Mr. Alvarez stated that he has brought this issue up with the developer and architects. With a traffic study that's being done, we'll have a resolution on whether or not G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES that's needed or not in terms of engineering whether there is a stacking area that's deep enough. Commissioner Hanson stated that the stacking area isn't the issue. The problem is similar to what happens at Desert Crossing. Many times a person pulls in and gets into the wrong lane and then gets to the stop sign and has to figure out where to go. Then there are all these cars trying to go all different ways and it does not work. This entrance is "100 accidents waiting to happen" and she will not approve this. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was concerned about the massive parking lot, which is what they're always fighting and he was wondering if they could use more variation in the lay out. Everything is very linear and it's big and massive. He is requesting that the applicant do something a little more unique to break up the expanse of the parking lot. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Westfield Shoppingtown is putting in two parking garages. The Gardens at El Paseo has a parking garage. This has significantly more parking with no architecture. The parking in the aforementioned shopping centers does have architecture and feels that this is what is missing in the Gateway project. He feels that it needs some architectural elements, as he has mentioned on several occasions. He would hope that the applicant would give some serious consideration to adding some covered parking which could be made into architectural elements. Have them break up the site line of all the massive cars. The trees in the parking lot are just not going to do it. This is an aesthetic issue. If there is some kind of architectural covered parking in different parts of the parking area it would add significantly to the project and take away that feel of all of that parking. Commissioner Lingle agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell. There is much merit to what he offers and it could improve this project a great deal aesthetically. Mark Giles, architect, stated that the cost issues are significant. While having shade structures would be nice, they will look stupid if they're too small. What happens is you start increasing the size which increases the cost and it becomes significant. There is no doubt that this is a very large parking field. There is 357,000 square feet of building. We run the risk of putting shade structures in at significant cost and put a lot of them in to make it relevant to the 27 acres of parking lot. This is the concern. On a five acre parking lot you could probably put some small shade structures in and be relevant to the scale of the site. The Gateway project is 56 acres that makes it incredibly difficult in a cost efficient way to add shade structures that are meaningful from a shade standpoint, a parking standpoint, an G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\/\R020723.MIN 24 ..r OO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES architectural standpoint and an economical standpoint. Even the landscaping comments regarding using a 15 gallon tree versus a 24" box are significantly effecting the cost of this project for landscaping. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he can understand the economic issues. However, those are not the Commission's issues. The Commission deals with aesthetics. While he is not insensitive to the economic issues, he feels that the responsibility is the applicant's and not the Commission's to take the exception to the cost factor. If they're going to remove some of the trees, they're reducing the cost and the maintenance of trees if they put up a shade structure. It doesn't have to be an architectural masterpiece. It could be something like a trellis that has bougainvillea growing on it. Mr. Giles stated that bougainvillea aren't allowed. Mr. Knight stated that they are allowed, but not in mass. The point that Commissioner O'Donnell is trying to make is that the applicant may be able to save some money on planting trees, maintenance and water and add some architectural interest to the parking lot. We are going to be looking at asphalt, small trees for four or five years and nothing else except gargantuan buildings in the background and, according to the design guidelines, some pretty nifty looking buildings in the foreground. Unless some interest is added to the parking lot, it's going to be tough for Commissioner O'Donnell to approve the site plan. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there are other ways to add interest besides using shade structures. He suggested designing a pedestrian- friendly area with clumping of trees with benches or a fountain to give the parking lot some variation. Mr. Giles commented that it's 650' from the front door of Wal*Mart to the cross driveway that runs north-south. It's almost 1 ,000' across or three football fields. Shade structures would have to be relevant to that scale, which would have to be large structures. Is it more important to put architecture in the field or on the buildings? He's guessing it's both at this point. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that Monterey Avenue is probably going to have some nice architecture and landscaping but once you get into the interior, then it's going to be a vast wasteland of parking and asphalt and those people who have to walk 1000' are going to be walking across asphalt with nice exposure to the west. The sense that there's shade out there means something psychologically. He doesn't know how big a shelter or shading device will be needed. That's something that designers need to work out, but he thinks it needs something and not just parking lot trees. Commissioner Gregory commented that what Commissioner O'Donnell is asking for is not just G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES shade structures over cars but something to provide interest to relieve the monotony of the parking lot. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if it functions it would be fine but it could also be something such as some sort of pedestrian interest. Commissioner Gregory suggested making a park-like entrance to the shopping center with some type of arbor or trellis that creates a little relief from the sea of cars and a feeling of architecture. Mr. Alvarez stated that he put together a staff report with comments/recommendations on the design guidelines which includes colors, materials, lighting, signage, architectural themes and details. We want Wal*Mart and Sam's to match the smaller retail buildings. He's talked to the architects and they're working together to get the details hammered out and coordinated. Mr. Carver stated that this was correct. Mr. Alvarez is requesting the comments from the Commission on the design guidelines. He has put his comments in writing in the staff report. He commented on lighting, signage which will be using reverse channel halo lit letters. When the buildings come forward the Commission will have a chance to review the signage. Monument signage is also addressed conceptually in the design guidelines. He mentioned to Mr. Carver that they're proposing two types of monument signage. There are large monument signs and small tenant monument signs. There are five small monument signs proposed which are 5' x 4' and the large monument signs are 8' high x 13' wide. The concern that staff had from a code standpoint was that because this is a shopping center they're allowed one large monument sign per frontage but where they have more than 1,600' of frontage they're allowed to have two large monument signs. They're allowed to have two of the large monument signs on Monterey and Dinah Shore, but according to the design guidelines, they're requesting five additional smaller tenant signs throughout the frontage on Monterey. He is requesting comments from the Commission on this matter. Mr. Alvarez has recommended some changes so that it complies with our lighting requirements and signage requirements. He felt that the materials, colors and architectural details were pretty good and just wants to make sure that Wal*Mart and Sam's detailing matches the guidelines. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that at the first meeting he complimented Mr. Carver on the guidelines and he still feels that way. He's read them over several times and thinks they're nice and tight with some exceptions. His only plea is to really reinforce with the Wal*Mart architects to conform to these standards. Commissioner Hanson commented that the light fixtures should be appropriately scaled for each building. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 23, 2002 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for conceptual approval of landscape design with the exception of parkway plantings subject to (1) trees in the parking lot to be a combination of 15 gallon and 24" box, to be worked out with the Landscape Manager, (2) planters to align with two parking spaces, (3) consider water calculations, and (4) developer to consider installing carports or other architectural element to break up expanse of parking lot. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval of design guidelines with changes as noted in staff report of 7/23/02. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GTIanning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020723.MIN 27 'err" CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission denying a precise plan of design/conditional use permit and parking adjustment for a 2,000 square foot church facility at the northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. Ill. APPELLANT/APPLICANT: Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ Church 73-850 Fairway, Box 12 Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NO: PP/CUP 02-07 V. DATE: August 22, 2002 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. B. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2136 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 4, 2002 E. Related maps and/or exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council grant the appeal subject to conditions. s ,few, 1%0001 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PP/CUP 02-07 AUGUST 22, 2002 B. DISCUSSION: 1 . Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 square foot church, an outdoor patio fellowship area and eight parking spaces. A portion of the parking lot will be located on the existing right-of-way for the, southerly end of San Jacinto Avenue. San Jacinto is currently closed to through traffic by means of a wooden barrier. The applicant indicates that mass will be celebrated Sunday mornings and evenings. Attendees range from 10 to 35 persons. Mass will also be celebrated Monday through Thursday evening (5-15 persons). Classes will be held several times per week in the evening (10 to 30 persons). Saturday workshops, several times per year, are expected to attract up to 30 persons. The church building has been located toward the west end of the lot with a patio area located north of the building. Parking for eight vehicles is located on the east portion of the lot and on the west half of the San Jacinto Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the lot. This right-of-way is currently not used for street purposes and can be vacated to the adjacent owner. Access to the parking lot is from Alessandro. The east half of the San Jacinto right-of-way will remain as an 18-foot wide access way with a gate to provide emergency vehicle access. The single family dwellings to the north will retain their access to San Jacinto to the north. 2. Planning Commission Action: Prior to and at the Planning Commission hearing of June 4, 2002 there was considerable neighborhood input. The neighbors submitted an extensive list of concerns and staff prepared conditions to mitigate the concerns. Even with the extensive conditions of approval the neighbors continued to oppose the project at the public hearing. They felt that a church with evening activities would impact them more than an office project. The church use would be active during the week 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PP/CUP 02-07 AUGUST 22, 2002 in the evenings and on weekends when they are home while an office use would be active during the week when they are not home. Representatives for the church described in detail the low key type of services which they offer. They felt that the conditions of approval would prevent the church from being a church. Planning Commission determined that the lack of adequate on-site parking and the overall intensity of evening and weekend activities are incompatible with the adjacent residential uses and inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Palma Village Specific Plan and adopted Resolution No. 2136 denying the project at its June 18, 2002 meeting. This timely appeal was filed June 28, 2002 and the applicant waived his right to a hearing date in the time frame as prescribed by code. The church has reached agreement to lease the two lots to the west (20- year lease) to address the onsite parking deficiency. August 9, 2002 staff received a revised site plan (reduced version attached) which pushes the building closer to the residential structure to the north and moves the courtyard/patio area away from the residence to the north. Most of the courtyard area is adjacent to Alessandro where a privacy wall is proposed. This plan provides eight parking spaces onsite and shows a connection to the lot to the west which is described as "future parking." August 12, 2002 the applicant submitted a preliminary parking lot layout showing 29 spaces on the lots to the west. The church use has a parking requirement for 29 spaces. The lease may be revoked by the church with 180 days notice to the owner but the owner cannot revoke the lease except for non payment of rent. This revised proposal including the lots to the west while it addresses the on-site parking deficiency may trigger new concerns (i.e., intrusion of the parking lot two lots deep into the residential area). If the City wishes to pursue this new proposal, then a new public hearing needs to be scheduled before the Planning Commission. This new larger project will also need an expanded circulation of the legal notice. If this is City Council's wish, then the appeal should be denied without prejudice. 3 J ,%raw, %WpI CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PP/CUP 02-07 AUGUST 22, 2002 August 12, 2002 Father Ned Reidy submitted a letter (copy enclosed) which indicated that the church can live with many of the conditions which had been included in the draft Planning Commission Resolution. Specifically he notes that the church will not provide a day care / school facility other than during church services, that all maintenance will take place during regular office hours, Monday to Friday, that the church will not operate a soup kitchen, that the church will obtain a temporary use permit for weddings, baptisms, pot luck dinners, etc., but that funerals could not be subject to such requirements; "sensitivity to bereaved families would always take precedence." Evening uses would be limited and noiseless --- "adult education classes and book studies with few exception beyond these." 3. Staff Position: Creating 29 parking spaces on the lots to the west may create more problems than it solves. Parking will be concentrated in one area rather than spread out along Alessandro. Considering that Father Reidy now indicates that many of the conditions which were previously unacceptable are now acceptable, staff feels that our original recommendation from the June 4, 2002 staff report approving the project subject to conditions is appropriate. Hence our recommendation is to reverse the Planning Commission action and grant the appeal subject to conditions. The applicant has an agreement with the property owner at the northwest corner of Portola and Alessandro to use that parking lot for larger events. To ensure that overflow parking does not intrude into the residential area on San Jacinto and San Jose north of Alessandro, a condition has been added requiring that the church encourage members to not parking on residential streets. 4. Possible Courses of Action: This new proposal by the applicant and the church agreeing to many of the conditions which were previously unacceptable presents various options for the City Council: 4 i CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. PP/CUP 02-07 AUGUST 22, 2002 a. The City Council can affirm the Planning Commission action and deny the appeal due to the overall intensity of evening and weekend activities being incompatible with adjacent residential uses and inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Palma Village Specific Plan. b. The City Council can reverse the Planning Commission action and grant the appeal subject to appropriate conditions. C. The City Council can deny the appeal without prejudice. This would allow the applicant to present the revised plan to the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing in the near future. A full report of the original plan which was considered by Planning Commission and the conditions to address the neighbor concerns is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated June 4, 2002. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: STEVE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: HOMER CROY CARLOS L. ORTEGA ACTING ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CITY MANAGER OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /tm 5