HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-10 CITY OF PALM DESERT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
• MINUTES
JUNE 10, 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 11 0
Kristi Hanson X 9 2
Richard O'Donnell X 10 1
Chris Van Vliet X 11 0
John Vuksic X 10 1
Ray Lopez X 11 0
Karen Oppenheim X 2 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: May 27, 2003
Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to
approve the minutes of May 27, 2003. The motion carried 7-0.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. None.
1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
A. Final Drawings
1. CASE NO.: PP 01-02 (A)
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANBORN A/E, INC., FOR CANYON
NATIONAL BANK, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C, Palm Springs, CA
92264
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
architecture for a bank building.
LOCATION: 74-150 Country Club, Canyon National Bank
ZONE: O.P.
Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to approve by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with
Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining.
2. 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: Revision to approved
roof tile and reconsideration of stonework conditions of approval for
plans 1 & 4.
LOCATION: 39-100 Tamarisk Row; east side of Tamarisk Row Drive
north of Country Club Drive.
ZONE: R-1
Tony Bagato stated that the homes were approved with all barrel tiles
but they would like to make a modification so that some of the models
could have flat tile as an option. Also, the stonework was originally
approved subject to wrapping it back to the side yard wall. The
applicant would like to revise this condition to have the stucco come
down to match the top cap because the meter placement is going to
cause issues with the stonework. Commissioner Hanson suggested
putting the meters out a little further and frame them in and add the
stonework around them. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the meters
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 2
y„rr3
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
are on the other side of the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that
they should be on the other side of the wall anyways so that they're not
visible from the street. She suggested bringing the wall out a little
further and then stopping the stone at that wall and creating a separate
wall to enclose the meters. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he
doesn't see a big deal adding stone around the meters. Commissioner
Hanson stated that she doesn't think it would be a big hardship.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's hard to detail the stone around
the meters although it could happen. The meters will just be recessed
back a little bit but it would be okay. Commissioner Hanson stated that
the meters should not be visible from the front. Mr. Bagato stated that
Alan Levine, representative for Stonebridge, is not present at this time
but he would like for him to be at the meeting.
This discussion was continued after the last case on the agenda when
Alan Levine was present. Mr. Levine stated that originally the ARC
didn't like the stone just ending into the plaster. Therefore, the architect
put a 2" x 2" in this location to give it a definition point for the stone to
end. The current suggestion by the ARC to add a screen wall will add
cost to the house. The architect was very upset. Mr. Levine wanted to
know why they can't use a 2" x 2" as a place for the stonework to end.
Commissioner Hanson stated that it's a cheesy detail. Mr. Levine
stated that it adds relief and it's a point at which the stonework ends.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't understand the purpose
of the 2" x 2". The whole point of having the stone go all the way back
to the wall, wherever that wall is, is so that it looks like it's not just a silly
column sticking out there and it's part of the structure.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they return the stonework around
the side, then a screen wall won't be necessary.
Commissioner Gregory stated that if they really want to save money,
then don't put the stone up. Commissioner Hanson commented that if
they can't finish it up right, then don't do it at all. Mr. Levine asked if
they could use something heavier than a 2" x 2". Commissioner
Hanson said no. There's no point in adding a piece of trim to the wall.
Typically, when stonework is used it dies back into something and a 2"
x 2" or 2" x 4" isn't going to be sufficient. What is the point of that?
Why not take the stonework all the way back? Commissioner Vuksic
stated that even a 2" x 12" would be just a thing applied to the wall to
give the stone a place to stop. Mr. Levine commented that this is why
they've talked about doing something from ground to rafter but it didn't
make sense because it's still stuccoed above and then it looks dumb.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 3
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
AGENDA
Commissioner Gregory stated that if the stonework is removed then it
should have some other detail so it looks like it was meant to be the
way it ends up.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission is re-affirming their
original action and not requiring a screen wall.
Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner
O'Donnell for approval of revised roof tile options and re-affirmed their
previous action of May 13, 2003 approving plan 1 subject to (1)
lowering wainscot wall to 5'6" and (2) bringing stonework back to side
yard wall. Plan 4 will remain as shown on elevations submitted. Motion
carried 7-0.
3. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-16, C 98-5
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KL CHARLES & ASSOCIATES,
12631 E. Imperial Highway, Bldg. E, Suite 111, Santa Fe Springs, CA
90670
AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP/PALM DESERT, LLC, 301 Forest
Avenue, #200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval
of revised exterior paint colors. Staples Office Supply
LOCATION: 72-811 Highway 111
ZONE: PC-3
Phil Drell stated that the ideas were not developed by the architect as
well as he had hoped. The wainscoting on the bottom of Staples is a
raspberry color and the wainscoting on the bottom of Tweeters is
brownish burgundy. The idea is to take the brownish burgundy and
substitute it for the raspberry. They would also like to eliminate the
royal blue and replace it with a brownish red. The canary yellow on
Staples will be eliminated. Eventually the colors of Tweeters and the
colors of Staples have to meet somewhere. The original color board for
Staples was passed back and forth between Planning and
Redevelopment about fifteen times and the color board is missing. Mr.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 4
° rro
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
AGENDA
Drell stated that his inclination is that they start from scratch although
we're stuck with the Staples red.
Commissioner Hanson stated that somebody needs to spend some
time on the colors and figure it out.
Commissioner Gregory stated that Tweeters is using earth-tone colors
and Staples is using colors very far removed from that in terms of the
overall feeling. The complaint that he has heard is that the colors of
Staples are loud and meant to attract attention. Tweeters is very subtle
and laid back. Mr. Drell stated that they could be a little too laid back
and Staples is at the other end of the spectrum.
Commissioner Gregory commented that, meanwhile, the building is still
allowed to stand and they're still in business so no one's being hurt at
the moment.
Mr. Drell showed the commission the working drawings for the rest of
the Palms to Pines Center.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a
revised color scheme. Motion carried 7-0.
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 Cal Fed previously occupied this building.
Originally, Cal Fed had a non-illuminated individual letter sign that is
currently covered by a Citibank banner. The applicant is requesting
approval of a can sign which is blue with a flat face and is 11" thick,
according to the elevations. They would like a sign on all four sides of
the building. The commission was shown a color board submitted by
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 5
iftoe
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
AGENDA
the applicant. Staff is concerned that the proposed sign doesn't fit in
with the architecture of the building and also suggested that the sign be
centered on the fascia.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there is a very long inset on the
fascia and to make the change from the sign to the inset is awkward.
Commissioner Hanson suggested centering the sign and adding a
stucco band on either side of the sign to stop it. The sign can't just float
in the inset area. Commissioner Gregory told the applicant that the
commission will work with him to make sure that they're on the same
page. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the applicant still intended to
illuminate the red arc above the "T" on the proposal with individual
letters. Steve Laddaga, representative for Citibank, stated that the arc
would be illuminated with neon covered with plex face.
Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise plans to
show (1) blue area reduced, (2) use of individual channel letters, and
(3) incorporate sign into architecture. Motion carried 7-0.
5. CASE NO.: PP 02-17/ CUP 02-30
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS, INC., c/o LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT, 2398 San
Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three
single-family residences.
LOCATION: 46-050 Ocotillo Drive
ZONE: R-3
Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to approve by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0.
6. CASE NO.: PP 02-18/ CUP 02-32
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NOGLE ONUFER ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS, INC., c/o LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT, 2398 San
Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 6
Vow*
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
AGENDA
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three
single-family residences.
LOCATION: 45-500 Ocotillo Drive
ZONE: R-3
Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0.
7. CASE NO.: C 03-01
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PAT & OSCAR'S, 72-840 Highway
111, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for
consideration of revised color scheme for exterior. Pat & Oscar's.
LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown
ZONE: PC-3
This item was removed from the agenda at the applicant's request.
8. CASE NO.: SA 03-76
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE
JR., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of non-
illuminated monument sign for apartment complex.
LOCATION: 43-805 Monterey Avenue, Desert Pointe Apartments
ZONE: R-2
Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant, Jim Engle from Imperial Sign Co.,
is present to answer questions.
G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 7
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
AGENDA
Commissioner Hanson stated that there were some definite details that
were added to the apartments with peeler poles that would be
appropriate to add into the sign to make it look like it belongs there.
She suggested tying the sign in with the architecture. A peeler pole is a
round pole with the bark stripped off.
Commissioner Vuksic commented on the flatness of the sign. He
asked about the color of the sign. Mr. Engle stated that the idea was to
stucco the monument sign to match the building and use the colors
from the building (beige and terra cotta). Commissioner Vuksic asked
what happens when the sign transitions from one color to the other.
Mr. Engle stated that it's a painted surface. Commissioner O'Donnell
felt that there should be some relief to break up the sign. The word
"Pointe" is going to be very difficult to read from a distance. It looks
good on the drawing but it's going to be hard to read. Mr. Engle stated
that it's a residential area and there's a limit on square footage. He's
kept the sign at 15 square feet, which isn't very big for a monument
sign. He used the logo for the apartments and tried to keep the logo in
proportion with the sign and also is complying with the square footage
requirement for a residential zone. Mr. Bagato reminded the applicant
that he evaluates square footage for the actual lettering. The
monument can be larger for architectural detailing.
Commissioner Lopez commented that the proposed sign doesn't look
very good. He concurred with Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner
Van Vliet stated that there are maintenance issues with peeler poles.
Commissioner Hanson stated that they're a maintenance problem
anyway. Commissioner Vuksic stated that another option is popping
out the front part of the sign. Commissioner Hanson commented that
they don't have to use peeler poles, but should tie the sign in with the
architecture.
Commissioner Vuksic asked what the letters are made out of. Mr.
Engle stated that the letters are '/4" thick, black cut-out plastic and will
be affixed to the monument. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested
dropping the word "Apartments" down a couple of spaces to make it
easier to read. Mr. Engle stated that he didn't think it would be a
problem bringing it down.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the plane where the sign is pulled out
should be on a different plane than the side elements that are a
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 8
vrrr+
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
different color and that there be more relief at the color change near the
edge along the top.
Mr. Engle stated that his intention was to keep the monument sign low
profile and to give the people there some identity. He tried to keep it
similar to the Dixie Escrow sign located across the street.
Commissioners O'Donnell and Hanson stated that the Dixie Escrow
sign is pretty ugly.
Commissioner Lopez commented that sometimes landscaping in the
background can help monument signs. Currently there are a lot of
really tall palm trees and some sort of shrubbery behind the proposed
site for the sign. He suggested accenting and framing the sign with
landscaping to help the sign a little bit.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
O'Donnell to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) add relief
on plane where sign is pulled out, (2) lower the word "Apartments", and
(3) make the word "Pointe" easier to read. Motion carried 7-0.
B. Preliminary Plans
1. CASE NO.: CUP 03-01
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT PCS, GARY CASSEL, 5100
Queen Street, Riverside, CA 92506
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of a 72-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with
adjacent equipment cabinets within a 12'10" x 17' equipment enclosure
to include a 7' high concrete block perimeter wall.
LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74, St. Margaret's Church
ZONE: P
Francisco Urbina stated that the proposed location for a monopalm is
located in the rear of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church school. The
applicant is proposing to plant two live palm trees near the monopalm,
one at 40' in height and one at 50' in height. The City's Landscape
Specialist has recommended that the two live palm trees be
GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
Washingtonia filifera, instead of date palms. Date palms sometimes are
diseased when they're at that height due to their age. There is already
an existing wireless communications tower in the vicinity by another
carrier. With the recommended conditions staff feels that the proposed
project will not impact the site and recommends preliminary approval.
Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, commented that she didn't say
that the date palms would be diseased. A palm of this size gets weaker
as it gets older.
Commissioner Hanson wanted to know why the proposed monopalm
would be 72' in height. Gary Cassel, representative for Sprint PCS,
stated that they need the height because there is an elevation
difference between the back of the property and the front of the
property. It was a previously approved site. There are some
interference issues having to do with being at exactly the same height
as the existing monopalm. Commissioner Hanson asked if it could be a
little bit lower than the existing monopalm. Mr. Cassel stated that they
can't see past the 65' building which would reduce coverage. He
looked at a site next to the Verizon monopalm but he didn't want to be
too close to another cell tower. He would like to go in back of the
church where the cell tower could be hidden with additional trees and
be less noticeable from Highway 74. The only challenge is that there is
a difference in elevation.
Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it doesn't seem like this would
be an appropriate spot for a cell tower. If a building is blocking their
main view and they have to go 72' to make it work, then maybe this isn't
the best location. It seems like it's way too tall.
Commissioner Hanson asked if the monopalm could go next to the
existing monopalm, but slightly lower. Mr. Cassel stated that it can't go
right next to the existing monopalm because there will be interference
issues. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how far apart they have to be.
Mr. Cassel stated that they have to be approximately 20'-30' apart.
They could go on the other side but he really wanted to hide the
monopalm in the back. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the
existing tower is 50' in height. Mr. Cassel commented that if you go out
and measure the tower you'll find that it's not 50'. It's taller than 50'.
Verizon was able to install a cell tower at this height because they didn't
have the building blocking it. He thought it would be better to hide it in
the back. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it's not hidden and it's
very tall.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 10
' w✓
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned about the
properties in back on the hill. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that
those are the people we hear from. Mr. Cassel stated that he'll add
more trees if that's what it takes to screen the tower. Commissioner
Vuksic asked the applicant if he studied more spots on this site.
Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant was concerned that the
ARC may not like to see two cell towers next to each other, therefore,
chose a site at the rear of the church.
Commissioner Gregory stated that if the existing cell tower is above 50'
and the proposed tower will have to be taller, therefore, we're not that
far off the proposed height of 72' which would be behind the building,
even though it's the front for other people. Would it be possible to have
the taller palm in the back and add more than two live palms so that the
grouping looks as nice as the one in front does? Apparently, the one in
front is pretty successful as far as not attracting a lot of attention. He's
tried to look for it and he can't see it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated
that this would be a good option, if they can get trees that are tall
enough to plant around it. Commissioner Hanson stated that they
should be the tall, skinny trees like the trees in front. Mr. Cassel stated
that this would not be a problem.
Mr. Cassel stated that he wanted to bring up a point about the life of the
trees or the growth of the trees. After a certain period of time the trees
will get taller and block the antennae. He wants to make sure that the
monopalm that they install there is the type that has no antennae
showing and are in the trunk of the tree. One of the other reasons why
the tower has to be at 72' is because there are no antennae in the
fronds and are located at approximately 65'. He's trying to keep the live
palms as short as he can to allow for growth and he doesn't want to
replace the trees every 3-4 years.
Commissioner Lopez commented that he doesn't have a problem with
the proposed cell tower. He drives around the valley and he never sees
any monopalms. The only time he ever sees them is when he drives
over the 1-10 overpass he sees the monopalms along the railroad
tracks. When they're set off the road he doesn't see them. He would
like to be able to keep the height down as much as possible. He
doesn't have a problem with the currently proposed tower at 72' in
height, especially if the applicant adds more live trees around it.
Diane Hollinger suggested using Washingtonia robusta rather than
Washingtonia filifera to screen the cell tower. Commissioner Gregory
suggested adding a total of five live trees. Commissioner Vuksic
suggested adding three trees at 40' and two trees at 30'. Mr. Cassel
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 1 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
stated that the antennae are located at 50'-60'. There are two sections
of antennae. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could eliminate one
of the 30' trees and add a 50' tree. There should be one tree at 50',
three at 40' and one at 30' in height.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked if this tower will be able to service
Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells. Mr. Cassel stated that it would not.
The propagation map shows a 1.5 mile radius around the tower.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked how many towers Sprint has in Palm
Desert. Mr. Cassel stated that there's one tower in Palm Desert but
they're trying to add three more because they have very limited
coverage. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the diameter of the
monopalm at the base. Mr. Cassel stated that it's 24" in diameter.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the monopalm tapers. Mr. Cassel
stated that this type of monopalm with interior antennae are the same
diameter from top to bottom. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the
concern he has with cell towers is the equipment building. Mr. Cassel
stated that Sprint uses pre-fab buildings. They pour a 6" thick slab and
they surround it with a block wall. In this case, they're going to use a
stuccoed and textured wall to match the existing building. It should look
like part of the church. He will need an 8' wall to screen the equipment.
Mr. Urbina stated that the wall varies from 7' to 8' due to the slope.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez for approval subject to adding (1) 30', (3) 40' and (1) 50' live
Washingtonia robusta palms to screen the monopalm. Motion carried
5-1-1-0 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposed and Commissioner
Hanson abstaining.
2. 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 70' tall monopalm for Sprint PCS.
LOCATION: 74-665'/2 Highway 111, SCE substation directly south of
Del Taco.
ZONE: P
Tony Bagato stated that the applicant was proposing to add two live
palm trees to go inside the project, however, Southern California Edison
doesn't allow live palms inside their substations because of past
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 12
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
problems with fronds falling into their wiring. No landscaping above 10,
is allowed in the substation. Mr. Bagato met with the applicant months
before it was submitted to research potential sites. He suggested this
location because the applicant was looking across the street near
Albertson's and it would have been a tight squeeze. He looked at three
locations with the applicant and felt that the proposed site would be the
best solution. The antennae are 65' in height with a total height of 70'
to the top of the fronds. This conforms to all codes. This site is also
furthest away from the residential area with only a few homes within the
300' radius. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are apartments in
that area. Mr. Bagato stated that the apartments are approximately
250' away from the site. There are single family homes within 20'-30'
from the other sites that they looked at. The antennae are on the
outside of the monopalm.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if additional trees will be planted around
the monopalm. Gary Cassel, Sprint representative, stated that no
additional trees can be planted because SCE won't allow anything over
10' in height in the substation. Mr. Bagato stated that over 200
shortages were noted at Edison substations due to palm fronds falling
into their equipment.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that with due respect to staff he is
going to recommend denial. The site is cursed because of Southern
California Edison's limitations of what can be done there. Also, the
monopalm is too tall. This is not the right location for a cell tower. It
can't be screened because of SCE's conditions.
Commissioner Lopez noted that on the plans there is a chain-link fence
and iron fence at the back of the site. Mr. Bagato stated that this is
referring to existing fencing.
Commissioner Vuksic concurred with Commissioner O'Donnell. He has
a bad feeling about this site without any other trees around it. It's very
prominent looking in the photograph from Highway 111.
Mr. Cassel stated that this has been a three month process with staff.
He has been going out investigating each of the hotels to the east of the
location and across the street. He had at least four different landlords
involved in trying to find a location that would work. The Embassy
Suites personnel threw him out.
Commissioner Vuksic commented that they're concerned about
function because there's a gap when you're driving from Palm Desert to
La Quinta.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 13
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
Commissioner Hanson stated that she's sympathetic but she doesn't
want to approve something that she'll regret later.
Mr. Cassel stated that the other sites near the hotels are much closer to
residential areas.
Commissioner Gregory asked the commissioners if this matter might be
continued to allow the applicant to make another attempt at this site.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he preferred to deny the request.
Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson to deny the request based on (1) limitations set by SCE (i.e.
can't add live trees within substation to screen monopalm), and (2)
monopalm is too high. Motion carried 6-1-0-0 with Commissioner
Lopez opposed.
3. CASE NO.: CUP 03-10
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 a telecommunications site camouflaged as a 10' tall x 24' long faux
boulder on a hillside.
LOCATION: 51-600 Highway 74, CVWD parcel south of Bighorn
Mountains golf course.
ZONE: PCD
Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed site is off Highway 74 on the west
side, north of the last parcel within the city limits on CVWD property. It
is proposed to be a 10' tall x 24' long and 14' deep faux boulder on the
hillside. The boulder will be painted to match the hillside. Staff met
with the applicant on site and reviewed it with him. Staff felt that this
would be a good location and recommended approval.
Commissioner Hanson suggested planting a mesquite tree in front of
the faux boulder. Mr. Drell stated that this is an environment without
rocks.
Commissioner Gregory stated that the proposed boulder is not in
keeping with the type of rock that's out there. Commissioner O'Donnell
stated that the rocks in that area are more jagged and angular.
G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 14
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
Gary Cassel, Sprint representative, stated that the manufacturer of the
boulder company went up to the site and took the understanding of
what the hillside looks like and manufactured a sample rock that would
blend in. Mr. Drell stated that our rocks have a more iron oxide color
than the yellow color.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it appears that the rocks at the
proposed site are far more angular than round. He recommended
leaving real rubble around the boulder after the installation is complete.
Commissioner Hanson suggested adding a mesquite tree to the site.
Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, commented that there isn't a lot
of vegetation in this area. She suggested adding shrubs, rather than
trees. Commissioner Hanson stated that one strategically placed
mesquite tree would screen the boulder.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hanson for approval subject to (1) faux boulder to match site, (2) make
boulder angular, rather than rounded, and (3) add rubble around
boulder. Motion carried 7-0.
4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-18
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID YAGHOUBIAN, 72114
Follansbee Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of an addition and remodel of a commercial building in conjunction with
the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program.
LOCATION: 73950-73956 Highway 111
ZONE: C1
Juan Carlos Ochoa, architect, was present to answer questions.
Commissioner Hanson asked if the columns along the front of the
building could be equally spaced. Mr. Ochoa stated that the columns
are existing masonry columns and he planned to keep them where they
are. Commissioner Hanson asked if they're doing anything other than
just being there. Mr. Ochoa stated that they're probably just decorative.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they're far enough back so they
shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Hanson concurred.
Tony Bagato stated that on new buildings, the City tries to avoid using
can signs. He asked Mr. Ochoa if he could design the electrical system
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 15
err►
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2003
MINUTES
in a way so that there won't be any exterior raceways. Mr. Ochoa
stated that he could do that.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
O'Donnell for approval subject to designing electrical so that there are
no exterior raceways or can signs on the building. Motion carried 7-0.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m.
TONY BAGATO, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
for STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER
G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030610.MIN 16