Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-22 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES JULY 22, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:32 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 13 1 Kristi Hanson X 11 3 Richard O'Donnell X 10 4 Chris Van Vliet X 13 1 John Vuksic X 13 1 Ray Lopez X 13 1 Karen Oppenheim X 5 0 Also Present: 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: JULY 8, 2003 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of July 8, 2003. The motion carried 3-0-2-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 kvol ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 22, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: CUP 03-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 12188 Central Avenue, #269, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new 1,811 square foot oil change facility. Jiffy Lube LOCATION: 72-499 Fred Waring, Toys R Us Shopping Center ZONE: PC Commissioner Hanson asked if the height of the tower had been lowered. Mr. Ramirez stated that he dropped it 3'. Commissioner Hanson stated that the glass line was dropped to 11'6" which is probably sufficient for roller shades. Commissioner Vuksic suggested making the parking space 166". He asked about the addition of a planter. Mr. Ramirez stated that he added three planters. The landscape plan shows landscaping along the walls to soften it. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to see flashing details. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would like to see the parapet details. Mr. Ramirez stated that he will make a note to include that as part of the construction drawings. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to plans showing flashing detail. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 03-94 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC., 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of freestanding sign for Sacred Heart Church and School. LOCATION: 43-775 Deep Canyon Road ZONE: PR-4 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLY, 72-811 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised exterior colors. LOCATION: 72-811 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith showed the commission three different concepts that were submitted by the applicant, who was not present at the meeting. He was hoping to have actual color samples because we're not sure how close the computer generated color board actually is. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's not anywhere close to the actual colors. The roof on the building is actually a bright teal color, which is not represented on the color board. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the request be continued until proper documentation can be submitted. Commissioner Hanson commented that they need real color chips, a piece of the metal roof and the red from the sign. Mr. Smith stated that as far as he knows, the applicant has no intention of altering the red tile which is the background for the sign. There's no red on any of the concepts that were submitted for the meeting. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow applicant to (1) provide a sample of the metal roof, (2) a sample of red from sign and (3) actual color samples for proposed changes. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 03-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARRY OWENS, 77-545 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 3 err+" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a detached accessory structure within the required rear yard setback. LOCATION: 77-545 Robin Road ZONE: RE-40,000 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for final approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: TT 29468-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONEBRIDGE PALM DESERT, LLC, Michael Prock, 3525 Lomita Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of condition requiring stonework for plan #1. Brenna LOCATION: 39-100 Tamarisk Row; east side of Tamarisk Row Drive north of Country Club Drive. ZONE: R-1 Allan Levin, representative for Stonebridge Palm Desert, was present and stated that there are two different product lines in Stonebridge. The property in question has a much more substantial reveal to it around the corner. He didn't remember the commission reviewing this particular plan and he would like to get final approval. Commissioner Hanson stated that he did a good job on the stonework. She loved that they added stonework on the rear elevation. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that he would like to add the following item to the agenda. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add case number CUP 92-10 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 6. CASE NO.: CUP 92-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BANANAS, 72-291 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior color change. LOCATION: 72-291 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Art Davis, designer, was present to address the commission. Mr. Smith commented that he understood that the color that the building has recently been painted is not the final goal of the applicant. Mr. Davis stated that he has just entered the private sector after working in the Planning Department in Desert Hot Springs. He is an urban design graduate. The owners of Bananas would like to remodel their facade and create a new look for the night club and restaurant. He envisioned a certain color scheme that he feels is enjoyable in the desert. The owner liked the ideas and the painters ordered all the paint and started painting the building. After it was painted and some of the trim was added, the owner said that he liked it and thought that it was a refreshing change. Mr. Davis is not fully in favor of the tone of the lilac color, but he's quite happy with the general scheme. Currently, the backdrop for the restaurant is a very drab, brown mountain. If the brown color of the mountains was chosen as a color, it's kind of an ugly color. You wouldn't necessarily paint your living room this color. At sunset, the colors of the desert change and all the drab browns turn a very beautiful color. The colors that he sees are lavenders and crimson colors. That's the kind of color scheme that he enjoys quite a bit. The applicant will be coming forward with a full proposal and design scheme in conjunction with the facade enhancement program. They are starting to see some new projects that have more of a color change. He would like to bring forth a design that brings everything together because Bananas is located on Highway 111 and Fred Waring, which is a very important corner. They have an initial scheme. There are going to be GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES some more elements brought in, not only in color but architecturally. They want to add a tower element approximately 25' in height to resemble a lighthouse. One of his favorite inspirations is an Italian hill town. The colors are classic with lavenders and golden colors. They blend very nicely. The idea of Bananas is that it has to be tropical. The lavender colors come from the mountains at dusk and they'll probably be bringing in some more golden, aqua and turquoise colors. Currently, there is chicken wire in the front to support the bougainvillea and he would like to make it more architectural using a stainless steel grid of some sort. He's here today to let the commission know that there's going to be some thought put into this project and a formal presentation will be made. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if Mr. Davis was presenting anything to the commission at this time. Mr. Davis stated that he wasn't presenting anything official. Mr. Smith stated that a member of the public phoned the Planning Department earlier in the day and she is present to address the commission. Carol Mossteller, resident of Rancho Mirage, stated that she drives through Palm Desert and feels that Bananas is on a very important corner and it looks like something Heidi Fleiss has bought and turned into a brothel. It doesn't go with any of the new architecture in the surrounding area. The paint colors that were used on Staples are beautiful with the dark purples. However, the pink and purple on the Bananas building is just unbelievably ugly and it does nothing for the City. It's just terrible. The rest of the City looks beautiful and she hopes that they do something really nice because it is a very nice corner. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he felt that the Commission made a mistake on Staples. Ms. Mossteller stated that she thinks it looks beautiful. Mr. Davis stated that he's considering using a wash on the Bananas building. The raspberry color is a bougainvillea color and it does work as a trim color. Commissioner Lopez stated that he never noticed the roof until the building was repainted. He asked Mr. Davis if the roof will stay the same. Mr. Davis stated that the color of the roof takes on a different color at night. He commented that they do need to address the color of the roof. Commissioner Hanson commented that the roof should've G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 6 1"01 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES been washed before they painted the building. Purple is one of her favorite colors but in the desert a more appropriate purple color has more of a muted tone to it. It's not quite so "in your face". In general, color is good as long as it's in the right tones. Most desert colors are a little bit muted, not that they're not vibrant or beautiful. They're on the warmer side of the spectrum. Commissioner Vuksic commented that having a purple mountain in the background and a rose garden with pink roses in the front is a lot different than having those two colors side by side on a building. That's a very tricky inspiration to work with. He's trying to imagine which shades of those colors would work together. It's very tough. Mr. Davis stated that he's going to use a more muted lavender. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the magenta and purple would be hard to put together without it looking "carnival-like". It's an interesting challenge. No action was taken. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HENRY A. GOTTHELF, NSD VENTURES, LLC, 7916 Paseo Del Ocaso, La Jolla, CA 92037 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: Mr. Smith stated that this is a five building complex on the north side of Gerald Ford east of Cook Street. There was a previously approved concept for the property and the applicant is coming back through with revised plans. Matt Brady, Ware-Malcolm Architects, was present and stated that his plan is very similar to the previously approved plan. They had five buildings in the middle of lot. The orientation of the buildings on the site is virtually identical. The currently proposed buildings are slightly different in shape. A drawing was submitted for the commission to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 7 *400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES review of the articulation that shows the ins and outs of the facade, which was one of the concerns at the last meeting. The elements that stick out, now pop out two feet from the face of the building instead of 8". The building jogs out 11'. Panels on the sides of the buildings pop out. The articulation occurs on the front two buildings along Gerald Ford. They are using precast concrete panels with a foam liner for a stone panel. The proposed finish will be painted champagne, metallic finish aluminum mullion as part of the canopy and three other paint colors. The glass type was an issue at the last meeting. They drove by and looked at a building of concern in town and it used a very mirrored, reflective glass. The applicant still feels strongly that it's in the best interest of the project that they use a reflective glass so that they don't see everything that's going on inside the building and they don't get striping or banding by using a green tinted glass and spandrel glass. They submitted a sample of the green glass for the commission to review. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on some of the elevations he sees an 8" offset. Mr. Brady stated that the back buildings have an 8" offset. The front buildings that are exposed to the street really needed to have more articulation and be more impressive. The back buildings have an overlapped panel. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have some undulation in the height, but what happens where the higher panel turns back? Mr. Brady stated that from the ground it'll be perceived as a mass going back. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far back the flag goes. Mr. Brady stated that they typically go back 3'. Commissioner Vuksic asked what looks at the back buildings. Mr. Brady stated that there's a huge ditch, a row of trees, the railway and then the freeway. They analyzed the site to see if they thought that the project would benefit from visibility from the freeway, however, there is no freeway exposure. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the rear elevations of buildings A & B. Mr. Brady stated that there are roll-up doors and no landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there is visibility of those elevations from the back buildings and something should be done to enhance those elevations. Hank Gotthelf, applicant, stated that the concept that they're trying to bring to bear is a campus approach by virtue of turning the buildings in. Originally, the thought was that the buildings look to the rear of each building, but that's not what they want. They want people to start to look into the center and create a campus effect. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented that on buildings A & B they have some articulation and they've definitely been given more glass, she doesn't see the stepping up from Gerald Ford back to the main warehouse space, which the commission did ask for. Mr. Brady asked what she meant by stepping up. Commissioner Hanson stated that instead of just coming along Gerald Ford and all of a sudden you have a 26' tall building, add a lower element so that it steps back to the higher elevation. Commissioner Hanson stated that the roof is still pretty straight across the top. Mr. Brady stated that they do this all the time where they have a primary panel, accent panel and a general panel and it's pretty effective. Your line of sight isn't in elevation. This is not what you'll see. You'll be lower down and the element is sticking out 2'. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the walls are popped out from the main surface or 3' from the main parapet line. Where does the 3' flag wall start and stop? Mr. Brady stated that he hasn't decided the depth of the flag wall. He's willing to work it out, if that's a concern. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't have any other comments except for talking about the glass. Mr. Brady stated that at the previous meeting there was a concern that the reflective glass was going to be too shiny. He has chosen the lightest of the tinted glass because they're concerned that when you look at this building you don't want to see what's inside. Instead of using spandrel glass, which is going to look like one product and another glass on the lower part of the building which is going to have a completely different look and you're going to see the space inside. They'd rather see the building like it's shown on the elevations where they know what it's going to look like and not see everything that's inside. They feel pretty strongly that the reflective glass is the best thing for their project and for the City as well. Mr. Gotthelf commented that the mass of glass that they're looking at is nowhere near equal to what you would see in a fully glass office building sitting hard on a street. Obviously, there's glass on the proposed building. It's a modicum against the volume of the entire building in concrete in color. He feels that with the way the glass presents itself it's not a lot of glass against the concrete. Mr. Brady stated that they have performance issues with glass. The reflective glass is a much higher performing glass than the tinted glass. Here in the desert, heat gain is definitely an issue. The reflective glass will be a better performer and more efficient for the life of the project and they're trying to be sensitive to the environment. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Smith asked if the buildings have gotten bigger from the previous submittal. Mr. Gotthelf agreed that they have gotten bigger which was through discussion with Mr. Drell. The buildings as were originally conceived by Henry Casden were 78,000 square.feet which was an underdevelopment by a large magnitude. In discussion with Mr. Drell they decided to increase the size to 85,000 square feet. The effect is to increase the size of the two front buildings. The parking is approximately 40 spaces larger than the previous plan. Mr. Smith asked if the parking area meets the landscape requirement because no calculations are shown on the plan. Mr. Brady stated that he didn't do the landscape calculations. His landscape architect did the calculations and it complies with the landscape requirements. Mr. Smith stated that previously there were thick areas of landscaping and now it's minimal. Mr. Brady commented that the commission shouldn't look at his drawing for the landscaping. He would refer the commission to the landscape plan designed by the landscape architect. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on the site planning. There are three loading docks on the back buildings and the front buildings do not have any loading docks. He's concerned about the traffic pattern and access. He wondered how large trucks could enter the project and make the turn. Mr. Brady stated that he may shave an area off so that trucks could maneuver their vehicles in this area. He wants to keep the trucks away from the cars as much as possible. He can see that it's tight and can shave some areas for better circulation. Commissioner Van Vliet noted that there's a lot of office space and he doesn't want conflicts with trucks and traffic. Mr. Brady stated that in reality, they don't know how much office space they're going to have. It's market driven. They're parked pretty well and they would like to attract a lot of office. Whenever they've done projects like this it's an evolution. There's a lot of flexibility with these buildings to attract different types of tenants. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how they did their parking calculations if they weren't sure what the mix would be. Mr. Brady stated that he tried to get as many parking spaces as he could so that he could allow for more flexibility for his client. Mr. Gotthelf stated that they're at 3.4 parking spaces per 1,000 across the entire property, which is heavy. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the trash areas were. Mr. Brady stated that he hasn't put them in yet but has accounted for them in his calcs. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that some of the planting areas are very narrow. Diane Hollinger stated that she has not seen any landscape plans and the landscape architect has not been in G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 22, 2003 MINUTES contact with her. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he was never instructed to have any further meetings with the landscape architect or anybody regarding the landscaping. They're here because of the change in the architecture from the block buildings to the concrete tilt-up. If there's a request and a need for further review of the landscape he's certainly willing to do that. Mr. Smith stated that since they're starting over they need to address the landscape plan. Mr. Smith asked where the trucks are going to enter the site. He commented that they're going to have to go to Washington Street and then come back in order to enter the project. Mr. Brady stated that they're showing semis on this site but the reality is that this is not the type of vehicle that will come to this kind of a project. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they could have a lot of semi trucks come in for deliveries. Mr. Brady stated that he's trying to plan for every possibility but this is not a distribution center. Commissioner Hanson stated that the architect was trying to address the ARC's issues of popping up along the top and adding pop-outs. The problem she sees is that it's too random and it's almost too perfect. She's concerned about the scale of the buildings on Gerald Ford. She suggested bringing the scale of the building down. She gave the applicant sketches showing suggestions. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he agrees with Commissioner Hanson. The plans aren't as exciting as he would've hoped. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant should take it a step further and think about it from the standpoint of people driving down Gerald Ford and the fact that this very tall building is right up against the street. This would be a big impact and the commission wants that street to be something special and not just look like a warehouse/office space. They don't want it to be average. They want it to be great. Commissioner Hanson indicated she might be willing to approve the plans with conditions of making changes based on the commissioner's comments and then coming back and showing them some options. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he wants to get over hurdles and get started on the construction. Commissioner Lopez commented that the perimeter fencing should be secured. The landscape plan showed open areas and he wondered why. Some areas are heavily planted and other areas don't have any landscaping. There isn't any decomposed granite called out on the plans. He suggested adding some mounding in the front where the parking lot is to possibly screen some of the cars. He would like to see a little more detail but the plant palette looks good. Mr. Gotthelf G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR030722.MIN I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES commented that he doesn't have a finished landscape plan because he wanted the commission to look at the architecture. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the mechanical equipment and roof access would be hidden. Mr. Brady stated that there's an interior ladder and the parapets block the equipment. Commissioner Lopez stated that sidewalks would be helpful so that people don't have to walk on the street for a long distance. In some cases they would have to walk through a landscape area to get to a building. Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson commented that hand-sketched plans would be great for discussion purposes. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow applicant to revise plans. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 5403 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of ten building office complex. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane West ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that this is a ten-building office complex on approximately 8.5 acres on the corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. There is one two-story building and the rest of them are one-story buildings. There was some concern about the height of the two-story building and it was been scaled down to comply with the height limit which is 25'. Bob Ricciardi, architect, stated that the air conditioning is always a problem because you don't want to put wells in the roof because that creates other problems. On his first attempt he went with a 30' high building, but in the current drawings the height is 25'. He did away with the air conditioning enclosure on the top. The exterior materials include canterra stone, ledge stone and tinted glass. The building that faces the R-1 zone in the rear will have spandrel glass with high glass to let light in. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 12 "fto"` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES development is at the rear of the project. A commissioner stated that it's the Belmonte Estate residential project. Mr. Ricciardi commented that the buildings are approximately 6,600 square feet each with a lot of landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there is any variation in the buildings. Mr. Ricciardi stated that there is a little variation but basically they're somewhat similar. They sit in and out with landscaping so that when you drive by you'll see a nice continuity to it similar to the Cornerstone buildings on Country Club Drive. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it would be a problem to move the building in the northwest corner a little to the east. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they all have the ability to shift. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the undulation is nice but he would like the previously mentioned building moved back. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could move it back approximately 7'. Commissioner Hanson commented that the small buildings are really handsome and they look really nice. She likes the detail on them and the ins and outs. She's concerned about the sign locations since the facades have canterra stone on them. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they don't want any signs on the buildings. This project will be all medical with a monument sign at the entrance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the a/c enclosure is no longer there. Mr. Ricciardi stated that now he has to do something else to screen the equipment. He doesn't know why the City doesn't want to do things right. A 30' height limit would be ideal. The parapets are high enough to screen the a/c equipment. Commissioner Hanson asked if something could be created between the two columns over the entrance on the two-story building. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could bring an element out to create a canopy. Commissioner Vuksic commented on how long the unbroken parapet is. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could break it up. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of one-story buildings and conceptual landscape plans and continued the two-story building to allow the applicant to add an architectural feature to bring down the height of the building. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 22, 2003 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: CUP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT PCS, c/o STARBRIDGE COMMUNICATIONS, 5100 Queen Street, Riverside, CA 92506 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requesting preliminary approval of an amended site plan to construct a 72-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications structure at the rear of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church School. LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74 ZONE: P (Public Institution) Mr. Smith stated that this is a proposal for a new location on the church property. It has been relocated further south on the property. The applicant is proposing to add five additional live palms to screen the tower. Gary Cassel, representative for Sprint PCS, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Hanson asked if the live palms could be taller. Francisco Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing trees at 50' and 40' in height. Mr. Cassel stated that the antennae are in the pole, which means that there will be 14' above for fronds. This causes the tree to be a little bit taller than a tower with the antennae in the fronds. If the live palms are too tall, they will block the signal from the antennae. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 03-12, CUP 03-13, CZ 03-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 El Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of single story office building. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Fred Waring and San Anselmo ZONE: OP G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 14 err► *4d+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 22, 2003 MINUTES Tony Bagato stated that the site is on the corner of Fred Waring and San Anselmo consisting of a total of four lots. The proposed building is single story, 6,600 square feet with a 15% reduction of floor space and will be used for medical use with parking in the rear. Commissioner Hanson suggested widening a portion of the sidewalk, which was shown on the plans as being 4Y2` in width. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there is landscape in that area. The landscape plan was not available to review. He could angle this one area so that the sidewalk is wider. Commissioner Lopez asked about the size of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Hanson commented that it might be too small. Mr. Bagato stated that he feels that they might need a larger one. Commissioner Hanson thought that they might need a separate trash area for hazardous waste since it's being used for medical. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the plans were submitted to Waste Management and they approved what is shown. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are special rules regarding hazardous waste depending on whether they want an outside pick up or an inside pick up. It has to be locked down so that unauthorized people can't get in there. Commissioner Lopez asked if they will have covered parking. Commissioner Vuksic stated that part will be covered and the rest will have landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the sidewalk will continue all the way around the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sidewalk will go around the perimeter. Mr. Bagato stated that he is meeting with Public Works because there are some conditions that also might affect the project. At this point, he is asking the commission to comment on the overall architecture. Commissioner Hanson stated that this building will be a nice addition to Fred Waring. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it's a nice, low profile building. Commissioner Hanson wanted to look at the actual colors. She thought that the colors looked nice and were very subtle. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture only. Motion carried 4- 0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 22, 2003 MINUTES The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030722.MIN 16