Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-08 e CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES J U LY 8, 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 13 0 Kristi Hanson X 10 3 Richard O'Donnell X 10 3 Chris Van Vliet X 12 1 John Vuksic X 12 1 Ray Lopez X 12 1 Karen Oppenheim X 4 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 24, 2003 Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of June 24, 2003. The motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 t i �'' ice✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 03-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 255 Palowet, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised landscaping and shade cover over the electrical panel for a private well site. LOCATION: 42-600 Chia Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has not submitted any landscape plans for the well site. The applicant has been working on the site based on direction given by the Planning Commission and also with the neighbors. This case will go back to the Planning Commission on July 15, 2003 from a continuance. We could request approval of the shade cover over the electrical. The applicant had been directed to design a structure that would fit into the site. The structure is already installed, per the direction of the Planning Commission. They had requested that they would look at the site when everything was installed. Ms. Hollinger, Mr. Knight and Greg Babbington from Bighorn met at the site and came up with a landscape plan. A portion of the landscape has been installed, however, we don't have a plan. Commissioner Gregory asked Ms. Hollinger how she felt about the landscape design. Ms. Hollinger stated that based on the meeting that she had with the concerned homeowners, Spencer Knight, Greg Babbington and Patrick from Ray Martin Design, the applicant was directed to proceed with half of the work so that they could get an idea of how it was going to look. It looked fine and is going in the direction that was recommended, but she doesn't have a landscape plan. Commissioner Gregory commented that this is an unusual case. We have guidance by Planning Commission, construction before ARC approval and a landscape plan that's being done without a plan. What is the ARC supposed to do? Mr. Drell stated that he's not sure why this case is before the commission. Mr. Bagato stated that the Planning Commission directed the applicant to return to the ARC for final approval. Mr. Drell stated G91anning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 2 r f ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES that basically the applicant is willing to put everything in at risk and then change it if we don't like it. It's a plan but it's a plan on a macro-scale. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the case be continued. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the applicant to submit plans. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANDREW L. CASAS, P.O. Box 144, Blue Jay, CA 92317 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of roof height exception for a single family custom home and rear yard coverage exception for a detached accessory garage. LOCATION: 77-577 Mountain View ZONE: RE 40,000 Francisco Urbina showed the commission an elevation of the front of the proposed single family home on a large one-acre site on the south side of Mountain View. The applicant is also proposing an accessory structure that's over 3,000 square feet in the rear yard area. The property owner collects classic cars and they want-to be able to store six classic cars plus a 45' long motor home. The motor home requires a greater height clearance, which is one of the reasons why they want to go above 18' for the accessory structure. Portions of the roof of the main house will also exceed 18' because the applicant wants to achieve a certain pitch to the roof. They are requesting a reduction in the standard rear yard setback for detached accessory structures. The proposed setback is 15' when the code requires a setback of approximately 20', which is 1' of setback for each foot of building height. They're requesting a reduction of approximately 5' from the rear yard setback because their objective is to create a more usable rear yard between the main house and the garage. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the applicant's request. The exterior walls would be stucco with some portions having a stone veneer. G91anning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 3 t ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked if other properties in the area have a similar lot configuration. Mr. Urbina stated that they're all rectangular deep lots. Commissioner Gregory wondered how the neighbors felt about the plans. Commissioner Vuksic asked what was behind the property. Mr. Urbina stated that another single family home is behind the property. The applicant has submitted letters from adjacent owners stating that they don't object to the plans. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the neighbors who are immediately south of the property. Mr. Urbina asked Andrew Casas, applicant, if there was a letter of support from this particular neighbor on Robin Road. Mr. Renburg, property owner, stated that he has letters of approval from every single adjacent property owner within 300 feet. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the stone works on the elevation for the single family home. Mr. Casas stated that it's decorative stone veneer which is 2' at the furthest point and then it goes down to 18" so the mason has some free play to give it a little bit of looseness, but yet it's confined between 2' and 18". The stone could' be installed before the stucco and have the stucco in between each of the stones or the stone could be installed on top of the stucco. He would prefer the first alternative, however, it would be more expensive. He isn't sure which way it'll be done. There are also columns in the rear of the house to tie in the with front elevation. Mr. Urbina stated that the designer has changed the shape of some of the windows and brought plans for the commission to review that reflect the changes. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the applicant could butt the stucco up to the stone it would look much better than just gluing the stone on top of the stucco. Commissioner Gregory asked how the commission feels about the side of the detached garage as viewed by the neighbor. Commissioner Vuksic stated that architecturally he doesn't care for it, but it seems to be in keeping with what's around it. Commissioner Gregory commented that he's wondering about the 18' mass so close to the property line. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the neighbor doesn't care, then the commission is okay with it. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant submitted a well detailed plan for review. Mr. Drell reminded the applicant that this is the first step for the applicant and they will have to go to the Planning Commission for approval as well. Commissioner Vuksic thanked the applicant for putting together a good presentation. Mr. Renburg stated that all the properties in the area have large accessory structures. The only thing G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 4 rrrr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 AGENDA that they can't have is swine. They can have goats, horses, chickens, but no swine. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to having the plaster butted into the stone veneer on the single family dwelling. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 03-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDWARD OCHOA, 77-795 Michigan Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for construction of a 3' high wrought iron fence at edge of sidewalk. LOCATION: 77-795 Michigan Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a 3' high wrought iron fence on the edge of the sidewalk. The homeowner was not present for the meeting. The plans were included in the commissioner's packets for their review. There is a 5' wide sidewalk on Tennessee, which is in Palm Desert Country Club, and the applicant would like to put a 3'-4' high wall with a combination of wrought iron and block next to the sidewalk. Mr. Bagato drove around the neighborhood and there are other homes that have similar 2'-3' high walls that are along the curb. This request is consistent with other walls in the area. Staff is recommending approval. The applicant will need an encroachment permit if the ARC approves the request because it abuts the sidewalk. Commissioner Gregory stated that he doesn't mind a wall going up but he would prefer to have some planting area between the wall and the sidewalk so it would look a lot better. Mr. Bagato stated that for the proposed wall height the code states that it can be 7' from the curb. The applicant was informed that this could be approved over the counter with an encroachment permit. The reason the applicant is here is because he wanted the fence to be closer to the curb. If the fence was 7' from the curb there would be approximately 2' in front of the fence for planting. The fence will be constructed of block and wrought G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 AGENDA iron. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the footing should be designed so that it goes back towards the house to allow for more room for landscaping in front of the fence. Commissioner Lopez stated that 2' would be enough room for plant material. He's seen plans with planting areas that are 1' wide. Using DG and decorative rock also looks good. Commissioner Gregory noted that the applicant was not present. Mr. Drell suggested waiting for the applicant to be present. Commissioner Gregory asked if the commission votes on the request, can they revisit it if the applicant shows up? Mr. Drell stated that they can re-open the case if the applicant arrives later in the meeting. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) fence being 7' from curb, (2) design footing so that it projects back toward the house, and (3) appropriate landscape be installed between sidewalk and fence. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-78 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DIANE K. STEWART / STEVE LADDAGA, 1918 Potrero Avenue, S. El Monte, CA 91733 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of business signage. LOCATION: 74-480 Town Center Way, Citibank ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that this request was previously before the commission. There was some discussion because the ARC didn't feel that the can sign blended in with the architecture of the building. The request was continued with direction given to look into using individual channel letters with a blue background instead of using a can and also to have some kind of architectural detailing at the ends of the sign so that it blends in with the building better. They were also asked to decrease the blue area on the sign. The business owner doesn't want to do anything to blend the sign into the architecture. They did do individual pop-out letters so that only the letters would light up and not the whole can. Unfortunately, it's still a can sign. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 AGENDA Mr. Drell asked if it's rounded. Mr. Bagato stated that it's still flat. He told the applicant last week that they didn't reduce the blue area enough. The ultimate problem will be blending the sign in with the architecture of the building since the owner doesn't want to do anything. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's too much field for the sign and it looks like it's just stuck on the building. It's very obtrusive and he couldn't possibly approve it. Commissioner Gregory stated that the sign becomes an architectural element because of the mass. He asked the applicant if the sign could be made shorter. Diane Stewart, applicant, stated that she could make it a little bit shorter. Commissioner Gregory commented that they can go a lot shorter. The sign element itself is less than half the length of the sign. Ms. Stewart stated that she could probably make the sign 14'8" as opposed to 20' in length. Mr. Bagato showed the commission photos of a Citibank sign in Walnut Creek which had a lot less blue area. The commission agreed that this sign is more in proportion than the current sign proposal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the word Citibank is 60% and the rest of the sign is 40%. Ms. Stewart stated that the business owner really wants to use the blue background. She asked if they could reduce the sign to 12' in length. Commissioner Lopez stated that he couldn't support the proposed sign because it's too big and they've made the signs smaller in other cities. The proposed sign doesn't fit on the building. It looks like an afterthought and doesn't work with the architecture. Mr. Drell stated that signs shouldn't disappear in the architecture. They should jump out so that people can see them. That is the purpose of signage and not as camouflage. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to reducing length of sign so that the word "Citibank" is 3/5 in proportion to overall sign with 1/5 on either side. Sight height to remain unchanged. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 13 Esplanade, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for commercial/retail buildings in Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Drell stated that the location of the proposed project is at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street. Rick Evans, applicant, stated that there was a substitute site plan that he wanted to hang up so that the commission could see it. They were trying to work out a better distribution of parking for the project. Mr. Drell stated that they don't have anything that shows the whole property including Merrick's property. Across the street is Arco and the Hampton Inn & Suites. The City has purchased 170 acres across the southwest corner of this section, which will probably be a golf course. In the middle of the section will be a residential property, which has yet to be master planned. He hopes to get the whole area master planned. The site slopes approximately 80 feet from the bottom to the top of the residential property. There's a sand ridge midway through the section. The direction that was given to Mr. Evans on how to design the project was that the market and land uses that are obvious today are going to change radically in fifteen years when the residential area develops and the university develops. The university becomes the real engine and may include a sports arena. The future opportunities are very different from what they are today. Designing a project where the basic ground architecture works today but didn't foresee evolving into a different sort of project once it was oriented towards the university and also a whole neighborhood behind it. What they came up with was the concept of creating an internal street. Some buildings will face Cook Street, but the real action is going to be on the internal street. There will be offices GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 8 Nirrr° ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES toward the rear of the property and parking distributed throughout the site including angled parking on the street. They also created architecture that wasn't monolithic in style. Mr. Evans stated that he's spent a lot of time with staff developing the concept of the project. They've taken it to a level of detail that probably should be a little bit further when it comes to signage. When it comes to the overall project, what they're trying to demonstrate is an inter- relationship of different parts of this project to the total. Office is a very important function and it's planned to be 135,000 square feet of garden office. At University Drive, there is a three-story 30'-35' tall all-suites hotel. From University through the office product at the top of the site there is a usable walking street. They've tried to disperse the parking so that it had parking to serve each of the individual elements as they stand alone. Main Street is the important thing. Office is also important because it's intended to be a generator of customers, traffic and activity within the site. The hotel is intended to be the same way. They've done a mixture of restaurant pads and fast food because they thought a mixture for the different purposes, time of day, etc... is going to be really important to the way the product gets used. They've also tried to incorporate a variety of building shapes. The exterior of the building along Cook Street is intended to show that the buildings are not one sided. They want the buildings to literally feel like there's no back side to them. There's a point where the back has to be the back, but they've tried to disguise it as much as possible. There are two-story buildings with office on the top floor and retail on the lower floor. This is intended to mimic a downtown street. Michael Robinson, project architect, and Tal Jackson, landscape architect, were present to address the commission. Mr. Robinson has done a lot of projects in Irvine Ranch. Mr. Jackson has done a lot of work in Las Vegas, Newport and Palm Desert, including Marriott's Shadow Ridge. Mr. Evans has tried to pull together a team that could embrace the ideas the Mr. Drell and staff were suggesting for the last six months. This is the "anti-strip mall" concept. One of the reasons why they're trying to get two entrances on Cook Street and one entrance on Gerald Ford is because they want the traffic to be dispersed to those little pockets and for people to walk from there. This is not a strip mall where you drive in one big, long entrance similar to Desert Crossing which is a nice project but it's designed strip mall style. There's a big, open, wide entrance where cars come in and move around the place and then leave. The proposed project is completely G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES different from that style. It's intended to distribute traffic evenly. Design guidelines were distributed to the commissioners. Michael Robinson, architect, stated that one of the key elements of the site is the main street of the urban village. The concept behind the urban village is how they've dealt with the architecture so that buildings don't stand out and become architectural art pieces, but they're more set into the idea that the buildings look like they've been built over time and are more historical and tie in with the landscape. Basically, what sets off the main street are the entries with highlighted paving and a median strip that dies into an area where there will be directional signage. There will be 45° parking to provide for easy in/easy out access and direct communication to the store fronts. The idea is to have convenient parking which is easy to get in and out of, integration of landscaping and trying to encourage a pedestrian-type of orientation. All the areas in front of the buildings are covered. They're either arcades that are integrated in with the architecture or they're parts of the building that step out over the sidewalk to create shaded areas. The columns provide areas for vines to grow up. The hotel has been integrated in with two high-end restaurant pads. In between the two restaurants would be outdoor patios for each tenant. The two-story buildings have a covered arcade below. Some points on the second floor would be coved back so that there would be a terraced area. The idea is to do different detail on the parapets. Some would be more decorative and large and some would be simple. They're looking at different ways to incorporate more open trellis work for landscape material to grow on and allow some sun to filter through. Commissioner Gregory expressed concern regarding future signage on the east elevation. It appears that on some buildings the signage might be placed pretty high on the facade, especially on the right side on the two-story elements. He wanted to know if those buildings would have signage. Mr. Robinson stated that the signage will be on a single level. Mr. Drell stated that they need to see how signage will go on the buildings, even conceptually. Mr. Evans stated that he believes that they're going to have to have great signage on these buildings to make them work the right way. One of the difficulties with retail is that they can design the methodology, location and size but they're trying to leave the result to be a little bit more creative. He has hired a sign designer who did all the signs for the Irvine Spectrum Center and Fashion Island. The reason why he did that is because he thinks that the way to get the best result out of the sign program, once the criteria has been agreed upon, is to let the image of the merchant show G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES through, yet keep it in control with size, dimension, shape, color, etc... That can make the solution dynamic rather than static. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the applicant talked about the image of the merchant and questioned why they created a dramatic sense of entry and had fast food on pad #3 and #4. Mr. Robinson stated that there's a need for the fast food to have access. Mr. Drell stated that pad #3 is right in the heart of the street and people are not going to walk past it. He could possibly see pad #4 working. He asked the applicant if they could put pad #3 somewhere else on Gerald Ford. Mr. Evans stated that mixing it up is a good idea. He stated that his wife taught him that when you're in a kitchen you walk in a triangle. A lot about these buildings are that triangle. He doesn't think that people will walk past pad #3 but he does think that it's an important element in the highway overlay that they acknowledge the need to have people arrive and park and not get involved in the whole center if they don't want to. Commissioner Gregory commented that the drive-thru on pad #3 is contrary to what they're trying to promote with their grand scheme. Mr. Evans did not agree. This is one issue that they haven't struggled with, primarily because he knows that the marketplace need is there. They had to find the right place for the fast food restaurants. There are probably three really good pad merchants out there to serve this area very well. They don't need ten of them to do it. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a different argument. He's talking about the drive thru lane. Can people park their cars and manage to get out of the car and walk into that particular fast food restaurant? Mr. Evans stated that they're capable of doing that in all of them. Commissioner Gregory stated that the pads are closer to the intersection for that particular market, i.e. people driving on the freeway wanting a fast food place to go to. Mr. Evans stated that it's also for the local person who is trying to get to work and want to be quick, in and out. He may have a very high style kind of an operation (coffee) and they will do very well here. They'll have tables and chairs and outdoor seating. If you look at the place as it unfolds, the intention behind it is to have what you need and have it dispersed evenly and not destroy the triangular kind of motion that was previously described between the three buildings. Mr. Drell suggested that he do something special to the fast food restaurant to make it feel like it's a part of the street. Perhaps they could enhance the paving of the drive thru lane to create a motor court for the cars to drive through but when cars aren't there it would almost look like it's part of the front. Usually we try to hide the drive thru aisle but here he doesn't think they should do that because they're hiding the building and then it looks like the back of something. They should do G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES the opposite and enhance the drive thru aisle visually so that it looks like a lane that cars are driving on sometimes and sometimes not. When the cars are not there it would look like part of the front. Commissioner Gregory stated that they're spending a lot of time on this, which is probably important but he doesn't want the commission to focus on one specific item. Mr. Robinson stated that they've gone to a lot of effort to provide design criteria for the tenants who are going to build the pads out. They will, in the end, have a real consistent feel for the movements, architecture and the colors. Tal Jackson, landscape architect, stated that they've broken the landscape into different zones which is outlined in the design guidelines. Essentially, the project perimeter, which encircles Gerald Ford, Wonder Palms and University Way utilizes more traditional desert plantings. He has introduced a meandering sidewalk in response to what is across the street. He has introduced canopy trees and Mexican palms. The entry portals coming in along Cook Street and Gerald Ford will have date palms, canopy trees and accent paving which will bring you into the project with directional signs indicating which way to go. He sees the entries as being very important because they disperse traffic in different directions. The main street idea allows for 60" parking on a two-way street. They've narrowed the street as much as possible to eliminate the back top effect, especially during the summer months, and to allow for pedestrian flow along both ends with a canopy tree that sets up the old town/downtown feeling. There is an external walk to the whole street scene as well as the walk underneath the canopy arcade. In reality, the arcade will be used more than the exterior portion. The date palm is the secondary, more vertical tree in the backdrop and will be used as an accent to the retail area. It sets up a really nice, stately street scene that leads the hotel user to the retail .edge and the retail user to the rest of the project area. The idea is to provide customers with a really nice pedestrian walking experience. As you're on 1-10 looking down at this center you'll be able to see the street lights and trees and palms all lining the streets at night. This is another reason why they ended up with a site plan the way they did, as is the future response to the university and long-term planning. They're going to create an urban village that's going to be a pedestrian friendly area for users from the university to come over and long-term for the neighborhood as well. Planning down the road and how this project is going to interact with both uses is very important. Commissioner Gregory commented that everyone keeps talking about the "street scene" . Other than seeing a large number of planting bays, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 12 NWO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES arcades and deep sidewalks, which he thinks is wonderful, he wonders if there are any means to encourage people to feel comfortable walking across the street. At the project entries there are enhanced paving areas, but he doesn't know how this feels like a street scene other than having a lot of trees. Mr. Jackson stated that by narrowing the street it promotes interaction. Commissioner Gregory commented that the planter on retail #4 at the entry going north/south could be moved a little bit to the left to make a more interesting focal point for traffic going in that direction. Mr. Drell suggested moving the planter over so that it becomes the end of a crosswalk. Commissioner Gregory asked if lighting will be ambient-type of lighting. Mr. Jackson stated that it would. Mr. Drell stated that he feels that the project, in terms of his goals, is 90% there. However, they have the same awning style bridging different buildings, which defeats the purpose of having the buildings look like they're different. There has to be some tweaking of the details because it still looks like an urban village built over time but designed by one architect. Mr. Evans stated that this is a very good point. They've talked about this issue in endless amounts of time. They felt like until they've received some direction from the commission, it would be hard to get a little bit too serious about that. If the commission looks at the design guidelines, they'll see that they address the idea of awnings in a very unique way. The buildings need to have covers, some of them need to have filtered light, some need to have trellises with vines on them, some will be metal, some will be slatted metal and some will be standing seam. What they're trying to achieve through that is when they get into their real design development, the challenge of the awnings will become a bigger part of it and will include the way the signs work. They have an idea but the challenge should hold the concept of the old buildings that are built over time. The other thing that they think that they can do very well is to keep a uniqueness of awning to a particular building. The one thing that they love to use but can't use here is glass. Mr. Drell stated that what we're seeing is just a snapshot in time and as the project evolves those issues will be addressed. Commissioner Gregory asked Diane Hollinger if in the two-story building area and also the right side of retail #4, and other areas, where there is no opportunity to meeting the shading requirements, can there be some sort of trade off or is that something that they should be aware of now? Mr. Drell stated that the requirement is that one in three of the total spaces in the project be shaded. The shade requirement is overall and there can be areas where the visibility is more important. Commissioner Gregory asked about the parking area between the hotel and the two-story retail #3. Mr. Drell stated that there should be G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES additional shading in this area. Commissioner Gregory commented that right now it appears to be sparse. Mr. Drell stated that they should be sure that there is additional shading in areas where visibility is not a problem and where there is going to be a more transient shopper, where visibility may be more important, they may want to use palm trees to give some shade but really get the heads above the signage. Ms. Hollinger stated that if they're in a retail center, then every storefront needs visibility, therefore, there won't be room to put trees. Mr. Drell stated that there's lots of space where they're showing no shading at all and these areas can be shaded without any problem. Ms. Hollinger suggested minimizing the amount of palm trees. There's still a low water use ordinance and they've got to of palms on the plans and it's not going to work. Mr. Drell commented that they have too many trees on Cook Street. There's no point in making the buildings look like fronts and then covering them with a forest. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was understood that with the fast food restaurants they will be looking for a greatly enhanced effort architecturally to make them "happier" as opposed to "happy". Mr. Robinson stated that there will be consistency of architectural detail. Commissioner Gregory commented that he wants even more because they really have to be snappy. In the past, when we've dealt with drive thru lanes we've tried to hide them somewhat and here they're not, which is okay, but make them look really good. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had some things to add to the list of things to be wary of and that they'll be looking for. The direction of the architecture looks good. He sees hints of Larchmont Street in Hancock Park in Los Angeles where he can imagine the angled parking aisles where you would want to run across the street. It would be nice to see a lot more of it because he just sees hints of it. It's very important to submit roof plans so that the commission can understand what's going on. They'll be looking at different heights of elements and how they work. Do they just go back a little ways and stop? Are they complete forms? They want to see that they have parapet heights that will conceal mechanical equipment and how they're getting up to the roofs. Are the utilities well screened? Francisco brought up an interesting point about something that he's seen before on drive thru lanes. What they have is a classic drive thru that wraps around the building, but maybe there are some possibilities to do that in a way that's more creative so that the drive aisle is only on one or maybe two sides of the building and then it somehow spits out instead of surrounding the building. The ARC will be looking at things like the parapets. Are they different? What are the proportions? Some areas look pretty massive. On the plan there's a little pop-out that looks like it goes all the way up to the roof and the cornice detail carries on across. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES Is that really what it's going to look like? These are examples of things that the commission will be looking at. Mr. Robinson stated that the next submittal will show the location of the signage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they will be looking at flashing details so that they don't have metal cap flashing on everything. Mr. Evans stated that the color range was chosen because of the color of the sand and the mountains and tried to draw a contrast that's not a conflicting kind of contrast. Mr. Robinson showed the commission the color board. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the colors look nice. He noticed something about 8Y2' wide parking spaces and wondered if that's what they're going to be. Mr. Robinson stated that they're 9' in width. Mr. Evans asked the commission for comments on the office product. The architecture is all part of the design guidelines because the buildings haven't been designed at this point. However, he wanted to get some input on that particular item. Commissioner Gregory asked if the office park would be done in phase II. Mr. Evans commented that it would be part of phase I. Fred Evans showed the commission the different phasing aspects on a site plan. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the walkway. Mr. Jackson stated- that the idea is to collect people at a certain point and bring them into the retail area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't see that at all on the plan. It looks like they've completely ignored it. Mr. Jackson stated that they haven't worked on the landscape concept of this area. Once this is done it will show how pedestrians will be picked up and pulled into that area. Mr. Evans stated that Chuck Crookhall is President of Shaw Properties. Shaw is their office partner in this project. They've spent more of their time trying to get a good balance of the parking so that the shaded parking would be their primary objective. They will have quite a bit of covered parking including carports. Commissioner Gregory asked if the office portion is part of this particular application right now and do we have enhanced plans to review? Mr. Evans stated that the office portion is part of the application. Mr. Drell stated that they're talking about a conceptual plan of a pretty ambitious project. Most of the comments made by the commissioners has to do with details. The applicant wants to go to the Planning Commission to be able to get significant entitlements to know if they can do a project like this at all. Before they start getting down to the fine points of how the paving is going to look on the aisle on the fast food restaurant, they're probably going to go to Planning Commission and the City Council relative to getting approval to do this use on this property. Part of their application involves changing the configuration of the commercial zone on this GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 15 �'`rrrP ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES corner. The ARC should look at the project globally now in terms of an overall architectural concept, overall site plan and overall theme. He's not sure if they can call it preliminary approval but it would be approval of the theme and the master plan so that it can go on to the Planning Commission and City Council and they can get their basic land use entitlement secured. Then it will come back to the ARC to work out the details that have been coming up in this discussion. Commissioner Gregory asked if they can give some kind of approval on the office area without really seeing specifics. Mr. Drell stated that they could give approval based on consistency with the architectural style of the buildings that the commission has seen. Mr. Evans stated that they can also review the design guidelines. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wasn't expecting to be responding to that part now. He wanted to know if they're looking for approval of the use of the area, circulation, massing of the buildings, overall architectural direction and style. Every time he sees one of those angled access spines he is concerned because usually they don't work that well. Desert Willow is an example where the architects laid out a spine and you can't see anything because it's planted. The proposed pedestrian spine doesn't really go into anything and circulation is a little "funny" there. Francisco Urbina introduced himself as one of the planners and stated that he and Steve Smith, Planning Manager (who was not present) reviewed the project site plan and elevations and wanted to share some of his comments and Mr. Smith's as well. Design can be a very subjective thing. If you ask five different people you get five different opinions. Their general perception on the elevations submitted was that they appear to be rather boxy and rigid. They would like a little bit more creativity and pizzazz. This is a major gateway entrance into the City of Palm Desert and the architecture that they approve for this area will, in a way, set the tone for the hundreds of acres of vacant land in the area. The impression that he and Steve Smith had was that this type of architecture is too commonly found in other parts of Southern California. They didn't think that it was distinctive enough for this prime entrance into the City. Regarding the drive thru lanes, they felt that the drive thru on pad #3 should be relocated. Mr. Drell commented that they've already discussed that. Mr. Urbina wanted to know what is at the other terminus of this visual aspect. Mr. Evans commented that when they started working with the whole office project, one of the things that they felt really strongly about is the importance of this project to the retail. As the project evolved, they've shifted the office product around to enhance as much as possible. The pedestrian walkway draws the people from the office park and brings them down to the retail area. This is different from Desert Willow. Commissioner Gregory asked if people are expected to be walking G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 8, 2003 MINUTES there in any form of numbers. It's mostly a visual thing, let's face it. You're not going to have that many people using it. Mr. Evans stated that he feels very strongly that it's going to happen. He could pick up 10-15 more parking spaces without it. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's not knocking it, but it looks like a tried and true element that they've seen many times and then it just peters off. Mr. Evans stated that the office workers won't want to leave their parking place when they leave the office to get something to eat. Commissioner Gregory stated that his point is that it almost looks like two different projects stuck together with a spine that goes nowhere. Mr. Drell stated that they have to clearly connect it together. Commissioner Vuksic stated that ideally that would become a pedestrian spot and the inlet into the parking would actually be somewhere else. Mr. Evans stated that if you look at the gateway aspect at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street he was asked specifically to keep the buildings away from the corner and to do something important in that location. He thought that the landscaped zone down the middle would be very inviting as people drive by and look up towards the parking area. Commissioner Gregory commented that he feels like they're going around in circles. He likes it, but it stops. Mr. Drell stated that the direction is that the pedestrian spine can't just end. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the square footage reflects the shapes. Mr. Robinson stated that it does. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this concerns him because they're fairly tight. If that's the square footage and they have architecture that they want to add to the outside, they may not have the room. If one building is 9,550 square feet and that's what they need, they haven't given themselves a lot of room for pop- outs and ins and outs between that envelope and the parking. They would end up with less than that square footage unless they have very little buffer between the parking and the building in an effort to make it look nice. He suggested that the architect be careful of that. Commissioner Lopez commented that the applicant should do preliminary water calculations for the landscape design. They'll save themselves a lot of time and will find out what trees they can and can't use. Think about locations for monument signage. Show locations of bus stops. Show locations of trash areas. Morton's did a nice design for a trash enclosure where it was designed as part of the building and is not visible from the parking area. Where is the drainage going to be located? Mr. Drell stated that he would hate to see deep recessions or big black holes. They should find drainage somewhere else or do what they did at Costco and use sub-parking lot drainage fields. He would hate to see what happened at The Gardens on El Paseo where the heart of the project became a drainage ditch. Commissioner Lopez commented that the roads in shopping centers can become raceways. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 17 'fir✓ «, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES Stop signs will probably be put in certain places, but they should try to reduce the speed of cars traveling through the shopping area. He wasn't sure why the sidewalks come to the street curb. Mr. Drell stated that this is a next to a highway where people are driving 60 mph. There won't be any parking on this street so what would be the purpose of the sidewalks coming to the curb? Mr. Evans stated that they just used it as a design element at this point. Mr. Drell commented that he would rather see it not meandering and have a consistent sidewalk. Ms. Hollinger commented that the Public Works Department likes meandering sidewalks. Mr. Drell stated that Public Works is not designing this project. Meandering sidewalks probably make more sense in a residential project. Mr. Evans wondered if they should even have sidewalks on Cook Street in certain places because they want the customer to walk through the project as opposed to along the street. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that she sees a lot of parking and a lot of office buildings. It's an exciting project but she's not convinced that the "village feel" is there yet. It looks flat. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez granted preliminary approval of master plan subject to (1) reconsider location and/or design of fast food restaurant on pad #3, (2) increase parking lot shading, per City requirements, (3) submit roof plans, (4) show parapet cornice and cap flashing details (no exposed sheet metal), (5) submit more detailed landscape plan, per City requirements, (6) sign locations need to be identified on elevations, (7) show how pedestrian landscape spine through parking lot connects to future office park, (8) show monument sign locations, bus stops and trash enclosures, and (9) response to comments should be submitted for review prior to preparation of working drawings. , Motion carried 4-0- 0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARES-REGIS GROUP, GREG ALBERT, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a 320-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: East of Monterey, north side of Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 1 g ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that the property is near the new Gateway project. The purpose of the university plan is to provide a mixture of housing from apartments, townhouses, small lot single family, large lot single family and high density apartments. This project fits into the low end of the high density apartments. This is more of a hybrid apartment townhouse concept. He asked the applicant if he has a building coverage calculation. The applicant stated that he doesn't have that number. Mr. Drell stated that the standard building coverage for this zone is 50%. There was some thought that the proposed coverage looks like it's above that amount. The units are relatively large ranging from 900- 1,300 square feet. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the buildings are double loaded because they look awfully thick. Mr. Drell stated that there are issues with roof height as well. Mike Boyd, architect/planner, stated that he has been working on this project for over a year. He stated that there are direct access garages for about half of the units. There is some surface parking on an island within the auto court. The objective to begin with was to create four- sided architecture, but it's really more like six to eight-sided architecture. They've really articulated every facet of the building. When they first started meeting with Mr. Drell over a year ago, they wanted to create an architecture that was really going to give them off site views with a nice street scene on Gerald Ford and the new proposed Gateway Street. At the same time, they wanted to de- emphasize the garages. There are two basic building types. One is a 40-plex and the other one is a 20-plex. They used these two building types to maximize the geometry of the site. Overall, there are 320 units. They've oriented the auto courts so that you're seeing very nicely articulated architecture. They wanted to create a townhome feel to these apartments and not make them feel like they're a bunch of stacked flats. They all have very unique entries. The ground floor enters on one orientation and the second floor enters on a second story corridor from a different orientation giving them the feeling of almost being two-story townhomes instead of stacked flat units. The main entrance to the project is located off Gateway and leads to the common area which has a clubhouse, leasing center and pools. There are some remote garages for additional parking. The apartments have 9' ceilings, balconies and nice outdoor spaces. They've created pedestrian courts within the building itself. Every unit has access to, some sort of open space. They want to use deep overhangs to maximize shade and to add shadow lines. The exterior materials include stucco and stone. They've used a lot of parallel street parking to slow the pace of the cars down and make it more pedestrian friendly. There will be enhanced paving within the auto courts to break up the hard surface. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 19 Now ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that the plans are really neat. He's never seen plans for single car garages with no corridor and people can just go up stairs into their units. Mr. Boyd stated that he wanted to create a lot variation where the building meets the sky and has used a combination of flat parapet areas so that they can use flat roof areas to hide the a/c condensers. They won't have any condensers on the ground. There will be some areas on the roof for the condensers and they have popped up elements with full hipped roofs. The height to the lower parapets is 22' and the tower elements are 30'. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant is going to be asking for a height exception. Mr. Boyd commented that there is a 4:12 roof pitch so that from the ground level you're not going to feel the full height of the ridge. It's going to be setback pretty far. Commissioner Vuksic asked where the ceiling is in relation to the window. Mr. Boyd stated that the ceiling is at a 9' plate. They have 7'8" headers. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have very little parapet and wondered how they plan to conceal mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Boyd stated that they will do sections and see if that has to adjust a bit. Condensers for units of this size won't be any higher than 2Y2 high. Mr. Drell asked if they could use the higher elements to shield the equipments. Mr. Boyd stated that they haven't worked out the roof plan completely yet. Their goal is to hide the equipment completely. Mr. Drell stated that this is a requirement. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevation that they're showing will not provide for that. Mr. Boyd stated that the units are actually 18" in height. Mr. Drell stated that at Hacienda Monterey, they built screens in front of the condenser units on the street side that look like chimneys. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the architecture is very nice. He really likes it. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a dense project and he's looking at ways to make it less dense feeling. He's wondering if having dual sidewalks along the main spine is necessary. From a landscape perspective, he would like to get more landscape in. He wanted to know if they need sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Drell commented that they do need both sidewalks because people are going to be walking down that street to the recreation area. Streets need sidewalks. Commissioner Gregory asked if there will be enhanced paving in the auto courts. Mr. Boyd stated that there will be several softly blended types of enhanced paving throughout. They weren't sure if there was going to be asphalt in the auto courts. Rich Cremwoody, landscape architect, stated that he's been challenged with tying in the craftsman-style architecture with Palm Desert- Coachella Valley landscaping. One thing that came to mind was the California soaring area at California Adventure theme park. They've G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES integrated the desert landscaping and craftsman architecture with dry stream beds, boulders, palo verde trees and mesquite trees. This has been their inspiration. The sidewalk is meandering along the main driveway with a dry stream bed element with boulders running up both sides. The sidewalk terminates at the recreation center with a free-form pool landscaped with fan palms. They are carrying the loose, meandering feeling into the auto courts with enhanced paving with some asphalt. Mr. Drell stated that it can't be black asphalt. It has to be a light color, otherwise it'll be like an oven. Commissioner Gregory stated that they shouldn't use colored asphalt. He's been involved in a few attempts in this desert area and it really doesn't do well. The area in the motor court is small enough that they could use colored concrete. Is anything being done to make the additional parking area more attractive? Mr. Boyd stated that there will be hipped roofs on the garages with landscaped pockets at both ends to soften them. Commissioner Gregory asked if this is a utility-type area or if some clever thoughts they've used elsewhere, within reason, might be considered in these areas? This is high density and a lot of units look down on these areas. Mr. Boyd stated that they are all enclosed garages and there are no carports. Commissioner Gregory commented that the garages are pretty long and asked if there are breaks between doors where they could have planters with vines growing on them to help break it up. He also asked if there was sufficient room somewhere to add trees, other than verticals, such as canopy trees. Mr. Cremwoody stated that he could possibly add canopy trees at the ends of the garages. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they intend to get up onto the roofs. Mr. Boyd stated that there will be some sort of a ladder system with a metal enclosure around it so that the general public can't climb the ladder. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the ladder was going to be stuck on with rungs that go up and over the roofs. It doesn't sound very good. Mr. Boyd stated that they will put them in inconspicuous places. Mr. Drell suggested that the applicant put the ladders on the plans and show the commission the exact locations. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant can incorporate the trash enclosures into the architecture so that it doesn't look like an after thought. Mr. Boyd stated that he talked to the disposal company and they've designed an enclosure that has the screening that they want to see. Commissioner Lopez stated that they can probably do better than the disposal company's minimum requirements. He also noticed some thorny trees, possibly palo verdes, in an area where there may be kids. He suggested using thornless palo verde trees. On the site plan, there isn't a good place to park near the leasing office. If someone has a party in the clubhouse, where are the guests going to park? They G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 21 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES should provide parking areas that are easy to get in and out of. Mr. Boyd stated that rather than condense a parking area so that it becomes something that you don't want to see when you come into the project, they created parallel spots along the main street for parking. Commissioner Lopez commented that he doesn't have a good feeling about that idea. There are only 4-5 spots close to the leasing office/clubhouse and feels that they will need more. Diane Hollinger commented that she didn't have sufficient landscape plans for this project. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant will have to go through a first rough-cut of the water calculations. Commissioner Lopez suggested that they do a vignette instead of doing the whole project to make sure that they're heading in the right direction. Ms. Hollinger stated that she would prefer full plans. Commissioner Gregory stated that the general approach for the landscaping looks good but they have some very serious work to do as far as coming up with a layout and seeing out the water calculations work. Mr. Drell stated that the less area of landscaping you have, the harder it is to meet the calcs. Before they go to working drawings, the applicant needs to come back with a more detailed plan with the water calculations on it so we know where they stand. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval with the understanding that the questions identified in the minutes will be addressed before submittal of working drawings. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MCA ARCHITECTS, INC., 1247 Pomona Road, #105, Corona, CA 92882 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remodel of existing House to Home to future retail and office/storage. LOCATION: 72-700 Dinah Shore Drive, House to Home ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that this item will have to go to the City Council because there is a tower element that exceeds the 35' height limit. The proposed colors are similar to the colors at Staples. He's recommending a different color for the base. Mr. Drell stated that this could be the same problem that we ran into when we tried to fiddle with G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 22 fir+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES the Staples colors. The applicant needs a different palette. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's deceiving because when you look at the color elevations they don't jump out at you. Mr. Drell stated that the board has the real color samples and the color elevations use colored pencils. There's a little more brown in the color elevations and that's the direction that they have to go. They should put a little more of the brown into the oranges and the golds. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant could be given direction that the colors indicated with the colored pencils is close, but we might need some color chips to verify it. Mr. Drell stated that the commission is to look at the architecture and the color, but there's no landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it wasn't clear as to what was going on and wondered if the box was there and they're adding stuff to it. Ed Franklin, applicant, stated that the building is existing and used to be House to Home. The building has been on the market for lease since January 2002 and they haven't had one single tenant user interested in the building. The retail environment has drifted away from these large box-type users. The building is approximately 100,000 square feet. They would like to take the front 60,000 square feet of the building and divide it into four different retail tenancies. The back 40,000 square feet of the building, which faces the freeway, will be divided into as many of seven tenancies for light industrial/service center-type uses. What currently is a single tenant building may very well evolve into as much as an eleven tenant building. They're completely open minded about the colors. They want something that works. The building is buried in back of a shopping center with no true surface street exposure and the building is well below grade. The intent of the two towers would provide for signage for the four retail tenants. They're trying to give the site some identities. Mr. Drell stated that two other tenants that have been in the "hole" with you have been successful, i.e. Jet Spas and Office Furniture. They're in a hole behind Costco. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there's no roof plan. He wants to make sure that the forms that are shown will translate into three dimensional forms that will go way back onto the roofs rather than becoming flat facades. He suggested that the cornice detail go around rather than stopping and basically getting sawed off. Vandana Kelkar, AIA, stated that she can do that. Commissioner Vuksic stressed to staff that it's a lot easier to interpret if they have a roof plan. Commissioner Lopez stated that it looks good and he likes the movement. It's quite an improvement; hopefully it works. He asked if there are any planting pockets. Mr. Drell stated that he would like to see a rehab landscape plan at least for the front of the building. Ms. Hollinger stated that the existing trees need to come out. The applicant G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 23 rrr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES needs to enhance the landscaping. Mr. Drell suggested that the applicant meet with Ms. Hollinger to get some advice on rehabilitating the landscaping. Mr. Franklin stated that the rear of the building will be for light service center-type uses and will not be a pedestrian oriented area. With regard to the front of the building, currently there is some landscaping in planters. The economics of this project is not necessarily what the focus of this meeting is, but this type of space is going to ask for 70-85 cents per square foot. This is not a big ticket type of project. They're exceptionally budget conscious. Ms. Hollinger commented that once one of those eucalyptus trees falls down on a car because you didn't take them out, they might re-visit that. The parking lot trees need to come out. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant to use something other than metal cap flashing on the parapets. Ms. Kelkar commented that this.is a standard method. Mr. Drell stated that people have found other solutions that seem to work. People do great designs and then put a tin can on the top which spoils it. Are the alternatives to cap flashing significantly more expensive? Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't think that it's more expensive. He never uses cap flashing. The Staples building is an example of cap flashing on a building and it's amazing how irregular it is. It picks up shadows and looks awful. Mr. Drell stated that cap flashing tends to `oil can". Everything is nice, clean, sharp and crisp and then you see some aluminum foil wrapped across the top. Mr. Franklin stated that this building is behind Costco and has no surface street frontage at all. Mr. Drell stated that they're going to great efforts to make the building look sharp so why spoil it with the edge? Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) submitting revised color samples, (2) submitting roof plans, and (3) wrap cornice detail around to the sides of the building. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 03-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: SPRINT PCS, GARY CASSEL, 30802 S. Pacific Coast Highway #K1, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 70' tall monopalm for Sprint PCS. LOCATION: 74-665Y2 Highway 111, SCE Substation directly south of Del Taco. GTIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES ZONE: P Mr. Bagato stated that this was previously before the commission. The main issue was that no additional live palms could be put on the site because Edison wouldn't allow it. The applicant visited Del Taco and the owner is going to rent out his land to add palm trees for screening. The applicant has returned with the same proposed tower which is 70' tall to the top of the fronds, 65' to the antennae. He's now adding five proposed live palms on the Del Taco property. The palms will vary in height from 48', 50', 40', 42' and 44'. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Lopez commented that he drove by the site a few times and based on the location he doesn't have a problem with this proposal. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 01-07 Amendment#1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: THE FOUNTAINS, 2020 West Rudasill Road, Tucson, AZ 85704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of wing addition with ten assisted living units. LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive ZONE: PR-10 Frank Urrutia, architect, stated that they are proposing a wing addition to the existing facility. The casitas are on the opposite end of the site. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the new wing ties into the existing architecture. Mr. Urrutia stated that the building that's there now has an all tile roof. He didn't want to duplicate what was there and tried to come up with something that's a little more contemporary that will tie into the building. The new wing is more in keeping with the entrance that was done a couple of years ago. The landscape plan will follow. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 3-0-1-3 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell, Hanson and Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 25 *410 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 8, 2003 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030708.MIN 26