Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-25 . "�` r,r�►� ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT �- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2003 **************************************************************************************************** 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 4 0 Kristi Hanson X 3 1 Neil Lingle X 2 2 Richard O'Donnell X 4 0 Chris Van Vliet X 4 0 John Vuksic X 4 0 Ray Lopez X 4 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of February 11, 2003. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 . - �'r` ",,�,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinas 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�• CITY OF PALM DESERT, Attn: Frankie Riddle, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of revised non-illuminated signage for Palm Desert Community Garden. LOCATION: West side of San Pablo Avenue. ZONE: R-2 This request was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. Action: None. 2. CASE NO.: C 03-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PAT & OSCAR'S, 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request to remove subordinate tower at Pat & Oscar's. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that according to information submitted by a representative of Westfield, the applicant is first required to obtain approval from Westfield for the exterior modifications proposed. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request until Westfield has approved the proposed revision. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030225.MIN 2 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: C 02-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE BRANDT, 507 Tomahawk Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of remodef of exterior of building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. Columbia Center LOCATION: 73-020 Et Paseo ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion subject to removal of cultured stone around windows. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: STEVE & LIZA REESE, 73-338 Chicory Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport for a single family home. LOCATION: 73-338 Chicory Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith commented that there are no setback issues with the structure. Photos of the front of the house as it currently exists were shown to the Commission. The owner, Steve Reese, is present. At some point in the past, the home did have a carport. It became structurally unsound and it was taken down. Most of the front yard is currently gravel. The applicant will be putting in a concrete driveway in addition to the proposed carport structure to create shade for his vehicle. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Reese when the house was built. Mr. Reese stated that it was built in 1949. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevation shows a 1:12 slope, which is what the house looks like. Commissioner Van Vliet thought that there should be more G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmiMAR030225.MIN 3 ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES architecture to match the house. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he could add outriggers to the carport to match the house. Mr. Reese stated that he didn't want to add outriggers because the weather would ruin them. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they work on the house. Mr. Reese stated that he had to put metal plates on the ends because they were so weathered. Mr. Drell stated that they've been there for over 50 years. Commissioner O'Donnell asked the applicant if he could add an overhang all the way around the carport. Mr. Reese commented that he thought about adding an overhang, but he doesn't want to do it that way. Commissioner O'Donnell thought that the carport should tie into the architecture because the house is so nice. It really needs an overhang that would be 1'/2 all around the structure. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to adding overhang on all four sides. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Gregory, Lingle and Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DAVE HOKANSON, WESTFIELD CORPORATION, 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of two entries into Westfield Shoppingtown. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Hokanson is present and would like to have the above request added to the agenda. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to add the above item to the agenda. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Gregory, Lingle and Hanson absent. Mr. Hokanson stated that he would like approval of plans for two mall entries on the south side of Highway 111 adjacent to Pat & Oscar's and also at JC Penney. He would like to add onto one element, while reducing the height of the other with a cap across the top, similar to what they did at Barnes and Noble and then return that back. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if it will have a back side to it. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR030225.MIN 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES Hokanson stated that it doesn't have a back side but it does have a 3 '/2' return on both sides. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they shoufd bring it back more than 3'/2'. Mr. Hokanson stated that they could certainly increase the depth of the return. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how far the roof projects out. Mr. Smith stated that the projection is 2'. There is no change in the location of signage. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of the Penney's entrance as submitted with returns to go back at least 15 feet and approval of entry adjacent to Pat & Oscar's subject to (1) increase tower by 5' and not lowering secondary element, and (2) have returns go back at least 15'. Motion carried 4-0- 0-3 with Commissioners Gregory, Lingle and Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC., 74-020 Alessandro, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of Country Club wall, parkway and project entry. Villa Portofino. LOCATION: Country Club Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary and final approval by minute motion subject to comments by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: TT 29468-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONEBRIDGE PALM DESERT, LLC, Michael Prock, 3525 Lomita Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR030225.MIN 5 ' � `�r�'` `�.� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of floor plans, elevations and typical front yard landscape plans for single family residential tract (130 lots, Phase II, south section). LOCATION: 39-100 Tamarisk Row; east side of Tamarisk Row Drive north of Country Club Drive. ZONE: R-1 Francisco Urbina stated that the applicant is requesting approval of five different single story models for approximately 130 lots on the south side of the tract. Since the time that the staff report was written, staff looked at the plotting in the cul-de-sac lots a little bit closer and would like to suggest to the ARC a condition that a revised plotting plan include a reverse floor plan for seven of the eight lots to reduce the length of the driveway. Mr. Drell asked the representative, Allan Levine, if there are paseos located between the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Levine stated that the sewer lines go through that area and he can't build a structure over the top of the sewer. Mr. Drell stated that the paseos were shown on the original approved tract map. What was shown on the plan was what was approved. Mr. Levine stated that buildings can't be built over the sewer lines, but it's okay to build walls in this location. Mr. Drell stated that he wants to see a landscape plan that incorporates the sidewalk that connects the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Urbina stated that there is a condition of approval requiring a revised plotting plan that shows front yard setbacks with garages varying from 20'-24' in keeping with the previous phase I condition. This is a condition of approval for phase II as well. The revised plotting plan and approval of preliminary front yard landscaping plans should be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit instead of prior to plan check submittal. There are no sidewalks in the community. Another condition which was listed in the staff report was to try to have a minimum of 14' distance between homes where feasible. There are a lot of areas where there is only 10' between homes. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that 14' distance between homes can be achieved throughout the whole project, but he's not sure that there's any distinct advantage to that. Mr. Smith stated that on Phase I the Commission had requested 14' separation between buildings to the greatest extent feasible. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he studied the setback issue very carefully and he did realize that once you set the first few sites that way, then the rest of them fall into place. With homes this massive with 5' setbacks plus the overhang on the roof, there won't be any side yard left. Mr. Levine stated that typically one side is dead with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030225.MIN 6 . • �', '� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES no gate. The wider side yard wiil have a gate for access to the rear yard. Mr. Drell stated that if the majority of lots sizes is 10,000 sq.ft. or above, then the sideyard setbacks are 8' and 12' unless specified otherwise. Apparently, it was specified in the development agreement that they're allowed 5' and 9' setbacks. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the location of the mechanical closets that would house the air handlers. He would like to see the location on the plans. The houses are really nice. Some details look really rich. On the elevations there are areas where there is wainscot and the lower part of the wall is thicker, however, this is not reflected on the plans. There's a really big difference between having a thickened base of the wall and just sticking a trim piece on the wall. Mr. Levine commented that he is not the architect and doesn't know the answer to this question. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the stone on the facade doesn't wrap around on Plan 4. It needs to go back to a site wall. Make sure that the details are finished off properly so that it looks rich. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there's no detail structure around the windows and doors on the sides of the homes. There are nail-on windows on the sides and something needs to be done to improve the aesthetics. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's not a fan of trim around the windows, but if any recess can be put into those windows it would really help. It works really well if you have a 2 x 6 wall, which they don't have. With a nail-on window, they could put a 2 x 4 trimmer and a nail-on window will fit on it. When the plaster is put on, there is a recess. On a 2 x 4 wall, they could put a 2 x 3 trimmer on to create some depth. Commissioner Lopez asked about the materials for the 5' garden wall in front of the homes. He would like clarification on the types of materials used. He would like to know where the trash cans are going on the side yard. People generally don't keep them in their garage. The spaces that have been created in the plans seem to invite people to leave the trash cans where they will be visible. The trash cans need to be in an area that's screened. The plantings don't look like they're up to Palm Desert's standards. In some of the planters there are only three plants shown. The courtyards don't show any landscaping. Mr. Levine asked if they're required to landscape inside an entry courtyard. Diane Hollinger commented that even if the area is behind a wall, it still has to be landscaped. Commissioner Lopez stated that there are too many deciduous trees on the plan. They should look at adding evergreens. The boulder types aren't called out on the plans. The type G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgmiMAR030225.MIN � . � '�'' `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES of edging isn't called out. Diane Hollinger stated that the yard sizes vary from site to site, therefore, the amount of plant material changes. There are huge gaps in the landscaping. The landscape architect should increase the plant palette. Mr. Levine asked if he could go into plan check. Mr. Smith stated that he could. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of architecture subject to (1) clarification on thickened base of wainscot; plans must match elevations showing thickened base of wainscot, (2) wrap stonework around side wall on Plans 1 & 4 to site wall, (3) recess side and rear windows using 2 x 3 nailers on 2 x 4 walls, (5) submit material clarification for 5' optional garden wall, (6) maintain 14' separation between buildings where possible, (7) study reversing units in cul-de-sacs, and (8) show location of HVAC air handlers. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Gregory, Lingle and Hanson absent. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the landscaping to allow the applicant to (1) screen trash can areas, (2) add landscaping to courtyards, (3) change some of the deciduous trees to evergreens, (4) call out boulder types, (5) call out material used for edging, (6) add landscaping where there are large, bare gaps, (7) increase plant palette, and (8) submit detailed elevations for gates. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Gregory, Hanson and Lingle absent. 3. CASE NO.: TT 29468-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� STONEBRIDGE PALM DESERT, LLC, Michael Prock, 3525 Lomita Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Clarification of conditions of approval regarding patio columns and chimney sizes. LOCATION: 39-100 Tamarisk Row; east side of Tamarisk Row Drive north of Country Club Drive, north section. ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030225.MIN g . - �r✓ � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Levine, representative for Stonebridge, stated that there are no chimneys. They are gas burning fireplaces, which do not require chimneys. There was concern regarding framing around the vents where they are visible from the street. On the north side is the railroad, the east side is the park and the west side is the CVWD well site. There are four houses that are south of the well site that could have painted vents and make it an option to have the chimney framed out. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this was not the full discussion. The discussion was also pertaining to areas where neighbors would see the vent as well as visibility from the street. Mr. Levine asked the Commission how much people notice the water heater stack and the vents from the waste pipe. Is it something that people will sit on their patio and focus on their neighbor's roof? Is it a justified expense to frame the vents? Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they didn't know what it would look like because they haven't seen it. Mr. Levine commented that it will look like a water heater vent. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it's that big, he doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the diameter of the vent is. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Levine what woutd prevent someone from burning wood in one of these fireplaces. Mr. Levine stated that they will tell people that they are gas fireplaces and not to burn anything in them. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if it's only a vent as Mr. Levine is describing it, he doesn't have an issue with it. Mr. Smith commented that they will see the working drawings and if it's different than what was described, he will show it to the Commission. Mr. Levine stated that he will get a cut sheet and show it to the Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's concerned that iYs going to look like a spark arrester that they didn't bother to build a chimney around. Mr. Levine stated that the stone around the patio columns in the rear yard will be offered as an option. This is not something that the neighbors are going to see. If it's something that the homeowner would like to add on to it, it will be a buyer option. Commissioner O'Donnell wanted to know the size of the columns. Mr. Levine stated that they are 16" square. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the first time they looked at the plans, the columns were a lot smaller. Commissioner Vuksic stated that 18" columns would be best. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to clarify the previous action of January 28, 2003 to (1) increase column size in rear elevations to 18", and (2) no framing necessary around gas vent for fireplace provided it resembles a typical plumbing G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030225.MIN 9 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES vent. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Gregory, Hanson and Lingle absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� FRANK URRUTIA, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscape for fire station remodel. LOCATION: Mesa View Drive ZONE: PR-7 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Lingle and Commissioner Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 03-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� METROPLEX ONE, 45-445 Portola Avenue, Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of two industrial buildings totaling 30,450 square feet. LOCATION: Technology Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Smith stated that the site for the proposed industrial buildings is located on Technology Drive, north and west of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. Mr. Bagato stated that the buildings have been angled so that the view from the street would limit the amount of trucks that would be visible. The design utilizes tilt-up material using various colors of gray. The applicant has provided screening for all the equipment. A landscape plan has been submitted which includes shade trees for additional G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R030225.MIN 1� � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES screening. The building height is 24' and the height of each storefront is 10'. The texture of the building is smooth with the exception of a few panels which have foam panels cast into the concrete so that it recedes about 1" to create shadow. Phil Smith was present and stated that the buildings will use typical tilt- up concrete construction with basic reveals. There is no variety in the texture, although that was his original thought but he feft that given the variety of paint colors that the textures would be lost. The entry volumes will be concrete. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the area where the parapets come down. He wanted to know how it would look from the side of the parapet. Would it go back at all or would he see the side of the higher parapet? Mr. P. Smith stated that he would see the side of the parapet which would be the depth of the wall (approximately 8"). Commissioner Vuksic asked about the type of material used on the mechanical screens. Mr. P. Smith stated that it will be a very simple, straight forward corrugated steel panel. Commissioner Gregory asked for an explanation for the reasoning for the layout of the different colored panels. Mr. P. Smith stated that it's a reaction to whaYs existing. Typically, this type of building is big because they have to be. One of the challenges is to create design that is cost effective and beautiful across the face of the building. A lot of existing buildings have a 6' band running along the length of the building, which is considered the design. He is trying to break up the facade so that the overall gesture could be broken up into a small dimension. Commissioner Gregory commented that assuming that this is a concept which might be embraced, he wondered if this is the best way that it might be broken up so that there is some kind of play of light and different shades of a similar color theme. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the upper level above the entrance frames seems really heavy. The color also helps to add to the heaviness. The 1" reveal will not create enough shadow patterns. Mr. P. Smith stated that the overall top plane is considered to be the band that is typically around a commercial building. Rather than going into the building with the depth (usually the storefront is stepped in 2'-3') he is trying to reverse that language so that all of the entries are defined with 10' high volumes that pop out and step out 7' to create the mass of shadow and depth. The building is left with a lower band and an upper band that each has its own definition. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that there are no horizontal elements, which would help to distinguish one level to another and add another layer of shadowing. Mr. P. Smith stated that as you look at the project from the oblique you G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030225.MIN 11 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES will see the entry volumes layer. Commissioner O'Donneli asked about the elevation that faces the southeast. Mr. P. Smith stated he's looking at it from Technology Drive. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that this project is going in the direction of a tilt-up building. The biggest problem is that the roof is so flat even though he's trying to break it up with some notches. It still seems like a big box, especially on the back side of the building. Mr. Smith stated that when the property on Gerald Ford gets developed, this building will not be visible. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission how they feel about the diagonal twist on the site plan. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's very interesting. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he can't get over the idea that it seems like the building is going to topple over. It looks like it's top heavy. If the proportions were reversed with the first level being 14' and the second level being 10' it wouldn't be as difficult for him to accept. Horizontal elements would work on this building. Mr. P. Smith stated that if he had all the money in the world, he would have glass all the way around the bottom so that the building would appear to hover and would distinctly be top heavy. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the areas that are recessed 1" where the parapet is visible should have a deeper recess. This is a suggestion, not a condition. He felt that this was a very interesting concept. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there's any advantage to coloring the concrete as opposed to painting. Mr. P. Smith stated that coloring the concrete is difficult in terms of consistency and cost becomes a major issue. Commissioner Lopez asked if there's going to be any signage on the facade. Mr. P. Smith stated that he's trying to incorporate the signage into the entry volume pop-outs. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he's still having some difficulty with the proportions. He doesn't dislike the design entirely, but he feels that it's not actually "there" yet. Commissioner Gregory commented that he would like to see a little less emphasis on the upper part of the building. He feels that Mr. Smith is onto something that's going to work. It's a treat to see something fresh G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030225.MIN 12 a y � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES like this. It needs a little more "tweeking". Mr. P. Smith stated that the general proportions will have to stay the same. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to returning breaks to parapet into roof. Motion failed 2-3-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Van Vliet and Gregory opposed and Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. A second motion was made to continue the request to allow the applicant to address the concerns of the Commission. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 02-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CITY OF PALM DESERT, Attn: Armando Rodriguez, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 CRAIG PEARSON, PEARSON ARCHITECTS, INC., 74-040 Highway 111, Suite 232, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary plans for a 3.3 acre expansion to the City's corporation yard including a 19,398 square foot structure and ancillary facility yard. LOCATION: 74-075 42"d Avenue ZONE: SI Armando Rodriguez was present to address the Commission. He commented that the Commission had requested at the last meeting to add larger trees on the Hovley Garden side of the corporation yard. It was also requested that they install and show the number of palm trees adjacent to the loading dock and add landscaping between the carports. They were asked to provide a trellis on the side of the building. The loading dock area is a heavy traffic area with heavy equipment going in and out. Trellises in this area would be subject to a lot of damage in the long term and would be high maintenance. They have addressed all the other issues, except for the trellises in the loading dock area. They have added 24" pop-outs along the block wall. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if they felt that their concerns that were previously expressed have been addressed. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was unsure of what their actual original concerns were. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the concerns were G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030225.MIN 13 . � �; � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES as follows: (1) Provide additional landscaping on the west wall. Hovley Gardens is already heavily landscaped. Additional palm trees will be installed in between the carports. (2) Re-align carports to allow palms to be placed between structures. (3) Provide a trellis on the west side of the building. This is a heavy traffic area near the loading dock. Having a trellis in this area might not work. (4) Provide a larger planter at the south end of the property. (5) Provide internal roof drains. (6) Provide additional detail around doors and windows. The same trellis concept will be applied to the doors. Diane Hollinger commented that she reviewed the landscape plan. She and Spencer Knight felt that the trees should be extended along 42nd Avenue to continue the landscape. The amount of trees used in the Hovley Gardens screening is too dense. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to (1) continue landscaping along 42"d Avenue to the east, and (2) reduce density of landscape screening on the south side. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposed and Commissioners Lingle and Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:37 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030225.MIN 14