Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-22 C CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 15 4 Kristi Hanson X 17 2 Neil Lingle X 13 6 Richard O'Donnell X 15 4 Chris Van Vliet X 18 1 John Vuksic X 17 2 Ray Lopez X 17 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: OCTOBER 8, 2002 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of October 8, 2002. The motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner O'Donnell abstaining and Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 02-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELEPHANT BAR, KEVAN NIXON, 73-833 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised exterior color change on the front elevation of the building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of San Luis Rey and Highway 111, Elephant Bar ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that this request was presented to the Commission two weeks ago and the applicant has returned with additional exterior revised plans. Joe Chum, District Manager for the Elephant Bar, stated that the plans that were presented to the Commission are not accurate. The stripes on the building will not be as busy as shown. Mr. Chum spoke to the designer who commented that the color that they are going to use is very subtle and is an earth tone color. They want to identify the entry of the restaurant. A lot of people use the back door on the patio side instead of the front entrance. This is part of their concept that they upgrade the exterior. The exterior hasn't been upgraded for six years because they didn't think that they needed to. However, due to economic conditions in the desert area they feel that if they upgrade their building, their business will improve. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Chum if the photos that he has submitted to the Commission are accurate. Mr. Chum commented that the color will be similar but he doesn't have a drawing of the actual color. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Commission understands why the applicant would want to make the proposed changes. People use the back entrance because that's where most of the parking is located. There is very limited parking in the front of the building. Mr. Chum commented that people who know the area park in the rear, but travelers wouldn't even know that the entrance is there. Commissioner Hanson commented that while the proposal makes sense from a street view and if they're trying to show people where the entrance is, maybe it's a matter of revamping the back to create an entrance. Mr. Chum GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 2 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES stated that this would be impossible because it used to be an old bank building with extremely thick concrete walls. The kitchen is located in the rear and he would prefer that people enter in the front where the bar and dining area are located. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant has considered revising the awning at the entrance. Mr. Chum stated that they intend to remove the awning after they paint the front. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested using a new awning or signage to accomplish the purpose without having to add the zebra striping. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he felt that the Commission had made it fairly clear at the previous meeting that they would not consider using the tower elements for this paint scheme. He encouraged the applicant to use the element on San Luis Rey with more of a round shape to it. What Mr. Chum has been telling the Commission is that he wants to focus on the front entry and the argument has been that it's probably difficult to do that due to lack of parking since the majority of the parking is behind the building, as opposed to the front. He suggested shifting the focus and try to think of some other way of achieving his goal without stylizing those elements. Mr. Chum stated that they are not trying to stylize the elements. He is trying to upgrade the building as part of the new concept for the Elephant Bar restaurants. Since 1996, they've been building restaurants with the exterior striping. They have found that this has been successful in northern California, Phoenix and some of southern California's newer buildings. They feel that they need to upgrade the building so that people traveling around the country can identify the restaurant. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that it's unlikely that he would approve this kind of painting scheme on those two elements. He's suggesting that Mr. Chum rethink what his needs are. Mr. Chum apologized for not having the designer communicate with the Planning Department. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he just wanted to be clear that this is the second time that he's seen the same proposal and he doesn't want Mr. Chum to waste his time. It's unlikely that Commissioner O'Donnell would vote to approve the proposed paint scheme. Commissioner Hanson concurred with Commissioner O'Donnell. She felt very strongly at the last meeting that it's inappropriate to put the striping on the two tower elements. She felt that it might be a nice enhancement on the curved element. She suggested working on the GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 3 VOW err►` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES signage for people coming out of the back parking lot to direct them towards the front entrance. Mr. Chum commented that he will have to refer the suggestions to the designer. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the designer to submit an accurate proposal for exterior color change. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 02-158 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TNT ELECTRIC SIGN, INC., 3080 E. 29`h Street, Long Beach, CA 90806 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of revised freestanding sign. Hampton Inn & Suites LOCATION: 14-900 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 02-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): A.R. WOOLWORTH, 77-240 Iroquois Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 JERRY W. SHERMAN, 81-677 Shadow Avenue, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary approval for a three-unit apartment. LOCATION: 74-176 Candlewood Street ZONE: R-3 GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Urbina stated that this is a proposal for three apartments on a vacant parcel on the north side of Candlewood Street. There will be two driveways. Currently, the apartment site is a parking lot that serves as parking for an adjacent apartment complex that's owned by the same property owner as the project site. There is an existing six-foot high grey slump block wall around the existing site. The parking for the tri-plex would be in the front. Three of the six parking spaces would have a metal carport structure in an almond color with a flat roof. The building has beige exterior stucco. The pop-out window trim will be a white color so that there will be a contrast between the beige wall color and the window trim. Portions of the roof will be flat and other portions are sloping hip and shed roofs. There is an existing Southern California Edison easement running north/south approximately through the middle of the site. The applicant's engineer has submitted paperwork to Edison requesting that they vacate the easement. The applicant has not had a response from Edison at this time. Staff is recommending a condition that the Edison easement be vacated before the case is scheduled for Planning Commission. In the event that Edison is unwilling to vacate the easement, then the project will have to be redesigned to have unit #3 avoid building over the easement. The new design would have to come back for Architectural Review Commission approval. Additionally, another condition that staff is recommending is that the applicant file a parcel map waiver so that the east half of the site becomes part of the parcel for the existing apartment complex to the east. Since this area serves as parking for that apartment project, staff is requesting that the property line be moved so that the parking stays with the apartment project to the east. With those two conditions, staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve of the subject project. Commissioner Vuksic stated that you can't just have little trim details around the windows. It needs architecture and not just flat walls with little trim details. There are some really awkward forms. Not much thought was given to the look of the overall facade. There is a 4 x 6 window and then there's a huge flat wall over it with a little 2 x 8 trim at the top. It looks like it needs quite a bit of work as far as refining massing and articulation. It's not that hard to do, but it needs another pass by the designer. The applicant, A.R. Woolworth, commented that the same building was approved about one month ago in another location. Mr. Woolworth commented that this is not a bad looking building. He doesn't agree G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES with Commissioner Vuksic. Commissioner O'Donnell asked where the building that was approved is located. Mr. Woolworth stated that it was for John Kearney off San Pablo. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't remember ever seeing this building. Mr. Woolworth commented that it was a four-plex. He is trying to improve the neighborhood since this is a pretty ratty-looking area and he's trying to do something to improve it without building the Taj Mahal. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he can take the same materials and compose them a little more skillfully. Commissioner Hanson asked if there is a purpose for the flat roof element. Mr. Woolworth stated that he thought that it breaks up the front elevation. Mr. Urbina asked if the air conditioning units would be ground mounted. Mr. Woolworth stated that the air conditioning units would be mounted on the ground. He commented that he could design a straight roof with all red tile. Commissioner Hanson stated that the current roof plans do break up the front elevation, but it does not break it up in a way that's very architecturally pleasing. She would much rather see an all the roof with a very simple design. There is enough room to add an extra thickness of a wall to the front rather than just add trim. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding wainscot in some areas and in other cases it could be a thick wall with the window recessed. In other cases it could be a feature that's around the window and comes out some distance but doesn't go all the way to the end of the building to create a vertical element. He would like to see him break up the roof line but he would rather see it all tile, rather than the and flat roof sections. Mr. Woolworth asked if the Commission wants him to thicken only the front elevation. Commissioner Hanson stated that their preference is that it's everywhere. Mr. Woolworth stated that his preference is that it isn't because that's a double wall and he doesn't want to add this to the entire building. He agreed that the front would be fine but not on the sides or rear where nobody would see it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the view is from the back. Mr. Woolworth stated that there is a church parking lot in this location. Commissioner Hanson commented that they weren't trying to add cost, but are trying to simplify it and have it make sense architecturally. Commissioner Lopez asked about the shade structure. Mr. Woolworth commented that this is a carport. Each of the three units have one covered parking space each. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 6 ems,/ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he wanted to be sure that the applicant understands that while the Commission is not expecting him to build the Taj Mahal, they are expecting some architecture. Mr. Woolworth stated that he was trying to give them something that they thought looked good. Commissioner O'Donnell commended the applicant for building apartments because he thinks we need them desperately, however, we also want some good architecture. Regardless of the neighborhood, it doesn't mean that we can't upgrade the neighborhood. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) thicken wall on front elevation, (2) add architecture around windows with a suggestion to add wainscot with thickened walls and windows recessed, (3) offset front elevation 12"-18" to add variation, (4) simplify architecture, and (5) entire roof to be tile. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 02-16/VAR 02-05 APPLICANT (.AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 36-unit apartment complex known as Palm Village Apartments. LOCATION: 73-610 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-3 Mr. Drell commented that there are a lot more units on this property than they would normally see. This is a low income housing project. We have a code that limits height to 24' and three different versions of this plan show roof heights of 24'-29'. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it's really clear when looking at all the different options that the 2:12 pitch looks strange. He noticed one version where there is a 2:12 pitch with popped up elements, which he did not think was appropriate. The 3:12 pitch option looks much better. Mr. Drell commented that there are two 3:12 plans. One plan has a 27' roof height and the other has a 29' roof height. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 7 **AV' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES Donnie DeWeese, Senior Project Designer, stated that the way it's set up, there are a number of different schemes, A-E. In each scheme, the front building is always going to be shorter because of the depth of the building. Commissioner Hanson asked what is located at the back of the project. Mr. Drell stated that right now there are some old apartment buildings, but eventually office/professional buildings will be located in this area. Mr. DeWeese stated that the other schemes show both back and front buildings have 24' roof height, which looks odd but it is in conformance with the height restrictions. Two of the other schemes utilize 24' as an average. One has roof heights of 26' and 22' in the different buildings. Some of the rear elevations have not been submitted. Commissioner Hanson commented that Scheme C is fine. The maximum roof height is 252". Mr. DeWeese stated that this scheme utilizes an average of 24'. The lower roofs are at 22'10" and the higher roofs are at 252". Commissioner Vuksic stated that when roof height adds to the architecture he feels that it's appropriate not to be restricted by height. Mr. DeWeese stated that he wanted to use subtle colors, but also introducing green tones and ochre colors to get away from "endless white". Commissioner Hanson stated that she did not like the colors. Mr. DeWeese commented that the dark green is for the trellises and railings. Commissioner Hanson commented that they do not look like very "deserty" colors. Commissioner Vuksic agreed. Light colors look really white in the sun. Commissioner Hanson commented that a darker base color is better because it comes out lighter than you think. The proposed colors are very "cool" and she felt that "warmer" and darker versions would be better. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. DeWeese if he's okay with an 8' plate. Mr. DeWeese stated that he'd rather not have the 8' plates and have a higher building. Mr. Drell commented that since the second floor is going to have some volume in the ceiling, you really only need to add 6" on the first floor. Mr. DeWeese stated that he could use 8'6" plates on the ground floor and 8' on the second floor with scissor trusses. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented that mullions are shown on the windows and wanted to know if they were actually to have mullions. Bryce White stated that they are probably going to use Milguard windows with the mullions between the panes. Commissioner Hanson remarked on the floor plans. She commented that T.V. tends to be a fairly major element in people's lives. The fact that they have a T.V. cabinet sitting out in the middle of the room, not anchored to a wall doesn't work well. She urged the designer to try some other furniture arrangements and may have to move a window slightly so that they can actually put a T.V. up against a wall. Additionally, in one unit they are almost forced to use twin beds and they may not want to do that. They should allow people as much flexibility as possible. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he understands that the roof lines will be lower on Scheme C and they'll probably lose the small windows near the top. He commented that he's having some difficulty with the symmetry of the building. He can't get past the feeling that it's like a "Lego village". Maybe they're trying to do too much. They've done a nice job providing a trellis element on some of the buildings, but on the south elevation it would be helpful if there were some kind of architectural fixed shading devices in the areas where there is a lot of open wall area. The wall surface temperature in the summertime is going to be about 140° and he was concerned about the flooring on the patio areas. Mr. DeWeese stated that the flooring will be plywood with stucco. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the windows and trim. He asked if they were proposing plant-ons for the trim. Mr. DeWeese stated that they project out and then are plastered. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he doesn't like that at all. All the windows have 2 x 6 or 2 x 4 plant-ons. He would like the windows to be inset. Mr. White stated that they could inset the windows if that's the preference of the Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is something that they encourage everybody to do so that it creates a shadow effect. There's a lot going on with the south elevation that might be forced and may not be necessary. He suggested that the architect take another look at this elevation. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how much the apartments are going to rent for. Terre La Rocca commented that they are going to be rented to lower income households so they will rent for approximately $450.- $550. per month. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Smith commented that he has been advised that the applicant is going to continue to work with Diane Hollinger relative to the landscaping. Commissioner Lopez asked about shade structures and visitor parking. Mr. White stated that there will be covered parking for the residents, but visitor parking will be on the street. He did not have the plans for the shade structures at the time of the meeting. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the ARC will need to see the plans. He asked the applicant to restudy the south elevation. Some of the detail that's currently shown should be reviewed to see if it's necessary. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval of architecture only of Scheme C for front and rear buildings subject to (1) 8'6" plate on the lower level and 8' plate on upper level, (2) inset windows with 2 x 4 trim at openings, (3) study television placement in some units and suggests moving windows to allow for wall space in these units, (4) revisit color palette and consider warmer, darker colors, and (5) restudy south elevation for shade elements. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 02-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): UNITED CHURCH OF THE DESERT, P.O. Box 1242, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a congregational church. LOCATION: 77-577 Mountain View ZONE: RE-40,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval of architecture only by minute motion with the condition that the applicant will come back with more details if the CUP is successful. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. G91anning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 10 r.r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: TT 30738 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC, 68-936 Adelina Road, Cathedral City, CA. 92234 MICHAEL A. PERONI, TKC, 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260-2590 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary landscape plans for common area and model homes for new subdivision at the corner of Portola and Hovley Lane. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane. ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that this project is a tentative tract map for 94 single- family lots with 9,000 square feet of minimum lot size. The tract map was approved on October 1, 2002 by the Planning Commission. The applicant filed an appeal requesting an amendment to a condition of approval of the tract. Staff had specified 14' combined side yard setbacks, but the applicant wants to have the flexibility to reduce that to 12' combined side yard setbacks on approximately 24 lots. Some would be 12' combined and others would be 13' combined. The architecture is described as contemporary/Mediterranean. There will be stonework on two model homes. The colors are southwest earth tone colors. There will be a total of nine different color schemes throughout the subdivision giving an appearance of variety in the streetscape. One of the other appeal application components that the applicant wants changed is to allow a reduction in the front yard set back for side entry garages from 20' to 16'. This is going to be a gated subdivision. There are no sidewalks so the property line will come right up to the curb. Plan Three has the side entry garage. It will have two windows and stonework on the wall. Related to Plan Three, since the side entry garage will come out further to the street than other elevations, staff wanted to add a condition recommending to the Commission that they enhance the side elevation to have additional stonework. On the side of the two front entry garages, staff would like the 3'-4' high stonework continued to the pedestrian garage door in order to enhance the streetscape view. There was an issue at the Planning Commission public hearing brought up by the Carter Elementary School. Mr. Urbina showed the Commission an elevation of the combination retaining/garden wall with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN l l tirrr►` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES the top 3' being wrought iron. The school district was concerned about the possible negative aesthetic impacts of a wall of up to 11 W, in height made of block. The applicant and his landscape architect create the current proposal stated above to alleviate the school district concerns by having decorative block with the top 3' being wrought iron with columns with stonework. Mr. Drell suggested that the school district could add murals to their side of the wall. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant will be in communication with the City's Art in Public Places staff about the possibility of the first 40'-60' of the wall closest to Hovely being all block walls to provide enough of a "canvas" for a potential art project that would involve the Carter Elementary School students. The applicant does want flexibility to not have wrought iron on the first 40'- 60' closest to Hovley. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the homeowners could fill in the top 3' and if they don't want it to be open to the school. Mr. Gonzales stated that he can add a condition to the CC&R's stating that homeowners would not be allowed to take out the wrought iron and fill it in with block. Commissioner O'Donnell asked the applicant how they can get the bougainvillea to grow on the top of the wall. Commissioner Hanson asked how high the wall is from the homeowner's side. The applicant stated that there is 3' of block on the homeowner's side. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he still doesn't know how they're going to get the bougainvillea to grow the way it looks on the plans. As presented, the vegetation softens the wall. If you take the bougainvillea out of the plans, it will look like a rather ugly wall. Commissioner Lopez asked how big the pilasters are. Some of them look too thin. Also, there really isn't a cap on the pilasters. He suggested continuing the stone veneer and don't put a different cap on it. Either get rid of the cap and lower the rock or put a cap on it. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the pilasters need to be half again as wide. Commissioner Lopez stated that some look thicker than others. Mr. Gonzales stated that he will keep the pilasters at about 24" in width. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were any planter areas in the parking lot on the school site to allow for landscaping to screen the wall. Mr. Gonzales stated that there are no planter areas for landscaping. Commissioner Hanson commented that there are several homes that could be pushed back since they have 66' of yard. There's no reason to allow a variance for this. Several homes have a garage on a corner or at the narrowest point of the lot. The units could be flipped back and forth to make it less noticeable. Michael Peroni commented that there are on-site retention areas in the back. Approximately 20'-30' is being used to take care of drainage. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES they put dry wells in. Mr. Gonzales stated that he could put dry wells in but it doesn't make economic sense for anyone to do that in this business. Commissioner Hanson stated that the minute that the homeowners move in, they're going to start changing the yard anyway and there will be no on-site drainage. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if they put dry wells in, they could use the whole yard. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the price range for these homes. Mr. Gonzales commented that they will average $425,000 — $450,000. They will come standard with a pool and jacuzzi. Mr. Gonzales stated that they designed Plan 3 without the third car garage so they still keep the same facade. The garage also can be converted to a guest suite. Commissioner Hanson commented that in general the way they have placed the homes, they have garages next to garages which doesn't create an attractive street scene. She urged the applicant to put dry wells in so that the entire yard could be utilized. Having the big retention basins in the back is a waste. Commissioner Hanson commented that there isn't enough room in the rear yard for patio furniture. There's no room for a chaise lounge. Mr. Gonzales stated that he's not required to do backyard landscaping. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is a suggestion. Mr. Gonzales commented that this is a semi-custom tract home. Commissioner Hanson stated that if the developer was building a home for himself, wouldn't he want to have enough room to have some patio chairs on his patio? Mr. Gonzales stated that he would and he plans to provide the home with a full package as well as having an option center. Commissioner O'Donnell wanted to discuss the setback layout. The applicant has created some interest by bringing some units out and having some units set back. He pointed out some areas where there are units lined up all in a row. Mr. Gonzales commented that he tried to keep the homes as far as possible from Portola because of the noise factor. He could stagger a few of these units. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that a few feet will not make a difference in the sound. Mr. Gonzales stated that he normally doesn't place homes in a straight line and he will stagger the homes to create interest. Mr. Drell commented that he noticed two three-car garages next to each other. Mr. Gonzales stated that the plot plan that was presented to the Commission is not the final plan. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant why he wants to reduce the side yard setbacks two feet. Mr. Gonzales commented that they G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES have 72' and 70' typical width lots in the development. There are only sixteen 70' wide lots. His largest floor plan is 58' wide and the smallest lot is 70' wide. He will not have a condition where they will have less than 13' separation house to house. In most cases the home designs are 58' and 57' and they comply with 14' and 14'. He would like to have the option of having flexibility with different plans on different lots. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if his lots were wider he wouldn't have that issue. Mr. Gonzales stated that this is a PR-5 zoning, which will allow five units per acre and he's at three units per acre. He started off with 98 lots and has removed lots to create a dramatic entryway. Mr. Peroni stated that the applicant has lost space due to the addition of a right turn lane on Hovley into Carter Elementary School and he also took over an easement and will remove the tamarisk trees and clean up the area. When looking at the setbacks look at the .combination of the articulation that he's putting into his units and facades. This is nowhere near a standard tract home. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is true on the front elevation. The rear elevations look horrible. There is such a lack of detail and these buildings are going to be backing up to each other. Mr. Gonzales commented that he's been in this business for 20-30 years. It's very difficult for any type of home, unless it's in Bighorn, where they have a rear elevation that should be a front elevation. He does have covered patios across the back. He stated that he's open for suggestions from the Commission. Commissioner Hanson commented that on the houses that have stonework he could add stone to the rear elevations, at least on the bottom of the columns. People don't live in their front yards. They spend more time in the backyard so why wouldn't he make it more beautiful? Mr. Gonzales stated that he could add stone to the bottom 3' of the column. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the applicant is selling the idea of good architecture but what about the other three sides? Commissioner Hanson stated that the facade is good. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there are any plans for shade structures in the rear of some of the models. Mr. Gonzales stated that they all have a full covered patio all the way across the back of the home. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if they plan to have any freestanding shade structures. Mr. Gonzales stated that they have a design for a freestanding casita where they have an option to put it within the building envelope in either the rear of the home or.the front of the home. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the rear elevations are being presented in their worst light because they look flat and they're not flat. There's substantial shadow that the applicant is not taking advantage of GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES in his presentation. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the thickness of the exterior walls. Mr. Gonzales stated that he has 2 x 4 and also some elements where they double up to give depth on the windows in the front. The sides and rear elevations have 2 x 4 walls. Commissioner Hanson commented that she can never make a 2 x 4 wall work with Title 24 standards. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the applicant can make it work. Mr. Gonzales stated that in higher end homes they use 2 x 6 walls. In this type of development, he can't do it. It would add approximately $2,000. to the cost. He uses low-E squared glass. He wishes he could use 2 x 6 walls and in some cases he does. He doesn't think that anyone in this particular price range is really using 2 x 6 walls. If you go up to Bighorn, then it's standard. The price range for this development is $425,000. -- $450,000. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it's more economical to use the low-E squared glass than to use 2 x 6 walls. Mr. Gonzales stated that in these particular homes, he uses a lot of glass. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the up-charge for ,using low-E squared glass will be more than $2,000. Mr. Gonzales stated that he has several projects and he's using the same vendor. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it's rare to see projects come in with 2 x 4 walls. Very seldom does he recall seeing this. Commissioner Hanson commented that in general, she's tired of the surround around the window. It's so overused and it's just a "band-aid". From now on she'd rather not see this type of treatment around a window. She would rather see a 2 x 6 wall with a 2 x 4 stud and recess the window like they did on the last project (Palm Village Apartments). Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission just approved a low income project using 2 x 6 walls with inset windows. The proposed project is using 2 x 4 walls on a $450,000. home and this does not make sense. It's so out of step with the energy issues that we, as consumers, are dealing with. As a developer, it would seem that it would be your responsibility to provide as tight a thermal package in homes as you possibly can within a reasonable range. Using 2 x 6 construction is nothing new. He can't believe that you have to be up in Bighorn in order to get a 2 x 6 wall frame. He's been designing and building 2 x 6 wall construction for over twenty years. He would never use 2 x 4 walls. In addition to that he would use rigid insulation, depending on the climate it either goes inside or outside so you can achieve up to an R-30 wall. These walls are going to see 140' temperatures. The applicant doesn't have a problem with that because he's selling them, but it's the consumer who's going to be paying the electric bills month after month. He doesn't buy the argument that it's going to cost the applicant that much to upgrade to 2 x 6 wall construction. Aesthetically, the proposed designs need it, aside from the energy issue and the thermal insulation issue. The windows and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 15 v4s+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES doors need that kind of treatment to them aesthetically. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that only a few windows have overhangs, and the majority don't have a significant overhang on the roof structure. Mr. Gonzales stated that they vary about 18" on average. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the applicant used a 2 x 6 wall and eliminated all the trim around every window and the labor of putting those in and the lathe and plaster, would it be that much of a difference in cost? Mr. Gonzales stated that if the Commission feels that this project deserves and needs, he will use 2 x 6 wall construction even though it will add cost. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he thinks that the applicant will get his value out of it and will help him sales-wise. Mr. Gonzales stated that it won't help him. He's built about 5,000 units and he won't get his money out of it. The normal person won't know the difference between a 2 x 4 wall and 2 x 6 wall. Commissioner Hanson commented that they could inform clients in their sales office and advertising from an energy efficient standpoint. Mr. Gonzales stated that it won't affect the sales. Sales are based on location and curb appeal. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the quality of the building is in the integrity of the structure. 2 x 6 framing is that much "beefier" but it accommodates all of the aesthetic elements regarding the windows and doors, etc... This is a commodity to the applicant but it's a home for the buyer. If the applicant wants to have a good conscience when he's old and frail about giving the homeowner a product that'll last for a long, long time, that may be as good as the few extra dollars that he may make by cutting costs by reducing the size of the wall frame. Mr. Gonzales stated that he tries to put the value where the consumer sees it with raised maple cabinets and slab granite. Most people don't know what a 2 x 4 wall or 2 x 6 wall is. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it's the applicant's responsibility to educate the consumer. If they're house shopping, a good sales pitch is to explain not only structurally how good the house is but how much better the thermal envelope is and how much less it's going to cost them on utility bills. Commissioner O'Donnell commented on the side setbacks that are going to be reduced to 12'. Mr. Peroni stated that 23 lots will have reduced side yards. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they're talking about 12' or 13' from wall line to wall line, not from the roof overhangs which project out 18"-24". This narrows the side setback even more. Mr. Urbina clarifed the conditions as follows: (1) 2 x 6 walls be used around the perimeter of all three models, (2) additional articulation on the cap of the pilaster columns adjacent to the Carter Elementary School, (3) additional stonework around the garages on Plan 3, (4) GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES suggestion to add stonework to the lower 3'-4' of the supporting columns in the rear yard, (5) approval by Landscape Manager, (6) stagger some of the front setbacks on homes backing up to Portola, and (7) no Plan 3's next to each other. Mr. Gonzales stated that he has some concerns regarding adding stonework to the columns in the rear yard. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was a suggestion. She commented that we have a responsibility as architects to provide a complete package, not merely a facade. Mr. Gonzales stated that he met with Peggy Reyes from Desert Sands Unified School District and Roger Clark. He showed them the new plan for the wall and they are 100% behind it. They are going to contact Mr. Urbina. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested getting a letter from the school district. Mr. Drell stated that this would be part of the Planning Commission condition. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was concerned about the setbacks. The project is too tight. The applicant is trying to get too many lots into this area. He doesn't like to see the side yard setbacks reduced. Diane Hollinger stated that she has not reviewed the landscape plans. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) 2 x 6 walls around perimeter to allow inset windows, (2) additional stonework to wrap around garage past door on side wall on Plan 3, (3) suggests adding stone to lower 2'-3' of supporting columns on rear elevation, (4) Plan 2 cannot be next to another Plan 2, and (5) approval of Landscape Manager. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 02-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WAYNE H. CRAYCROFT, P.O. Box 2175, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 JOHN STANFORD, 73-350 El Paseo, Suite 207, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of exterior remodel in conjunction with the Palm Desert Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-700 El Paseo (Fred Sand's Real Estate building) ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 6. 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 revised plans for installation of wireless telecommunications tower with equipment shelter. LOCATION: 100 Kiva Drive (Bighorn Maintenance Yard) ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has submitted a proposal in a substantially similar location to what was unacceptable. The applicant would like an action, as opposed to continuance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would deny this request because it's not an appropriate location. Commissioner Lopez commented that the applicant went back to the Board of Directors at Bighorn and they approved it. They're fine with it so he doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they're also cramming it right in the corner of their property so that nobody sees it internally, but everyone sees it on the outside. Commissioner Lopez commented that there are very few appropriate places for telecommunications towers. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission is trying to determine whether or not they're aesthetically feasible or pleasant, especially in residential neighborhoods and he doesn't think that they're appropriate in residential areas. The technology is the responsibility of the cellular companies and the aesthetics are the responsibility of the Commission. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminMR021022.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES Somehow they have to see that the Commission has a problem with cell site aesthetically and they have to come up with a technological solution. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request because the proposed location will be visible from public streets and adding palms to screen it would be inappropriate in as much as palms are not included in the plant palette in this portion of Bighorn. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Lopez opposed and Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 02-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT PCS, JANICE BYAL, 4684 Chabot Drive, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94588 GIANNI & ASSOCIATES, STEVE KAALI, 106 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 100, Glendale, CA 91206 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 63' monopine and equipment shelter. LOCATION: 300 south of Country Club Drive and 1300 feet east of Eldorado Drive ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Urbina commented that this case was continued from the September 24, 2002 ARC meeting with direction to plant two Canary Island pine trees. The applicant is proposing two 30 foot pine trees to help camouflage the 63' monopine. The Commission also directed the applicant to explore the possibility of lowering the height of the monopine. Sprint PCS engineers explored that possibility with a 10' reduction in height. The antennae panels are at 55' even though the top of the artificial tree is at 63'. The Sprint engineer concluded that lowering the height by 10' would result in dropped calls in the service area, which was unacceptable. Therefore, the proposal is for a 63' monopine with two 30' Canary Island pine trees. The City's Landscape Specialist has written a memo providing comments. The City does not allow topping of trees and if at some point the Canary Island pine trees were to reach a height to where they would interfere with the signal from the 55' high antennae, the applicant would have to remove the trees and replace them with 30' live Canary Island pine trees. The G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES other comment from the Landscape Specialist was that there be a notation explaining what box size would be used for the Canary Island pine trees. Steve Kaali, applicant, stated that they're going to do everything they can to find live pine trees at 30' in height. If they can't find trees at 30' they'll get smaller trees. Mr. Kaali presented samples of the materials that they'll be using for the monopine as well as a picture of the artificial pine bark to make sure that they won't be looking at a steel pole. Mr. Kaali gave the Commission propagation maps to show coverage patterns at 55' in height, 45' in height and with no site at all. One of the reasons why Sprint is pushing for 55' in height is not just for coverage. Monopines are one of the most "co-locateable" of the trees because of the branches being much lower down on the tree, as opposed to the monopalm where the fronds are only on the top portion. They are trying to encourage the City to push any future carriers who need coverage in this area to co-locate on the monopine. If they reduce the height of the monopine to 45', they're going to have to build another cell site for improved coverage. This particular site is market driven. Currently, users of the golf course, residents of Indian Ridge and travelers along Country Club have been getting little or no reception at all. This is why they researched this area and is the only place where they could put a site because there is a substation there, as opposed to homes. Mr. Kaali stated that if they reduce the height of the monopine to 45', they won't be able to utilize it for co-location. They need an 8'-10' separation from the bottom of the Sprint antennae to the top of a new carrier's antennae. If they install a 45' monopine, the new carrier would be at less than 35' which would not provide enough coverage. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that Mr. Kaali is making the assumption that there will be another company willing to hang their antennae on this monopine. We haven't seen that yet. Mr. Kaali commented that the carrier is trying to build sites at a higher height with the possibility of co- location with another carrier. They're not just doing this as a good neighbor policy. The other carrier would have to lease space on their tower. Therefore, they try to come in at a little higher height to provide enough space for another carrier so that we don't have another site going up just around the corner. Commissioner Lopez commented that in the future we can start planning for the cell site locations. Mr. Urbina stated that based on the applicant providing the color propagation maps justifying the proposed 63' height, staff would like to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 20 r �i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 MINUTES change the recommendation from no action to approval with the following conditions; (1) the applicant comply with the comments of the City's Landscape Specialist, (2) additional artificial pine branches be added at lower heights so that the lowest branch would be approximately 20' above ground level, (3) artificial bark be used for the main steel pole supporting the monopine, (4) in the event that the live pine trees start interfering with the antennae signals that the applicant be required to replace the pine trees with new live pines 30' in height. Mr. Kaali asked if the tops of the trees could be trimmed when they interfered with the signal. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager, stated that the City is very adamant about not topping trees. There's no way to reduce the height of a Canary Island pine. It's a single stem tree. If the top is cut off this type of tree, it would alter the character of the tree to what is an unstable and unsafe condition. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant about the cost of constructing and installing a monopine. Mr. Kaali stated that it will cost over $100,000. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted to see what the equipment building is going to look like. Mr. Urbina stated that there are 8'-10' high shrubs around the site with wrought iron within the compound. There is a block wall at the property line. The plans call for 6' high chain link fencing. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission does not approve chain link in a residential area. Mr. Kaali stated that there will be no chain link fencing. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to (1) comply with comments by Landscape Manager, (2) additional pine branches at lower levels, (3) artificial bark to be used on pole, (4) replace live pine trees when their heights create interference with telecommunications signal, and (5) use wrought iron fencing around equipment. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposed and Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021022.MIN 21 Y -- �