Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-24 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES JUNE 24, 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 12 0 Kristi Hanson X 10 2 Richard O'Donnell X 10 2 Chris Van Vliet X 12 0 John Vuksic X 11 1 Ray Lopez X 11 1 Karen Oppenheim X 3 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: JUNE 10, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of June 10, 2003. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner O'Donnell and Commissioner Lopez absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 wry ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-83 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSJ: SOHAIL MULL, 73-983 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. LOCATION: 73-983 Highway 111, Tribal Touch Rugs & More ZONE: C-1 Tony Bagato stated that the commission received photos of the existing signs in their packets. The Code Compliance department received a complaint regarding the accessory signs on this business. The code only allows two menu items. Anything more than two menu items cannot be approved by staff or by the ARC. The applicant has the option of going to the City Council to ask for an exception. The signs would meet the allowable square footage if it was approved by the City Council. There is 50 square feet of lineal frontage and the total sign area is 39 square feet. The window signage is in a separate category. Each menu sign is 12" x 7" and the main sign is 18" x 216". Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doesn't really care about the square footage that's allowed. He is concerned about the signage looking appropriate on the building. This looks really cluttered. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it looks like a boardwalk. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that typically we don't like to see signage on the fascias or on the parapets. Sohail Mull, applicant, stated that the signs are professionally done. It's fair for the guy down the street but wonders why he's being "nailed" all the time. It just becomes a headache for him. He showed pictures of other signage from businesses in the area to the commission. Commissioner Hanson stated that these signs were not approved by the ARC. Commissioner Gregory stated that anytime there's a retail business, signs are going to happen whether they're done through the process or not. Some of the signs that the applicant was showing the commission could already be in the process of being addressed by Code Compliance. Mr. Mull stated that his signs have been up since January 2003. Code Compliance never cited him for the past five G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 2 IAWW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES months. Don't they drive by his shop at least three times a week? Why does some other competitor have to turn into a snitch and complain before anything gets done? He has to call the City before Code gets off their rear ends and does something. Enforcement shouldn't be based on complaints. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he was familiar with the code. Mr. Mull stated that he's familiar with some of the code after the code officers came over and talked to him about certain things such as hanging a rug over his own door that pushes to the outside, which is "visual pollution". He put a Persian carpet that took three years to weave by hand over his door and it was called "visual pollution" while some drunk guy at the corner put up an illegal sign. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant's best bet probably is to go to council because part of what the ARC does is look at new programs or things where people start off on the right foot. The ARC has to follow the code. If the code allows for two menu items on the sign and a certain amount of square footage, that's what the commission can approve. The applicant could reduce the number of menu items to two or bring it to council, which would be his best chance to try to keep the signs that he has with the argument that they're professionally prepared. Once the ARC takes an action, the applicant will be in a position to file an appeal. Mr. Mull stated that he would like to change his main sign to eliminate the word "Touch" and also change the background color to yellow just like Yellow Mart, Best Buy, Pete Carlson's and the Clubhouse Deli. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was an illuminated sign. Mr. Mull stated that it is illuminated. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's a can sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what the ARC has done on submittals in the last couple of years is starting a precedent of upgraded signs as opposed to illuminated box signs. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that typically the ARC doesn't like to see can signs, especially hanging above the fascia. Mr. Mull stated that when the sign was put up seven years ago, this was the only location that he was allowed to use for signage. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he could use the same can but just modify it. Can it be shortened? Mr. Mull stated that he intends to use the same can and he will slip in the new plastic face. Commissioner Gregory suggested raising the sign up and eliminating some of the menu items. Mr. Mull agreed to raise the sign, change the plastic face and keep two of the menu items. Commissioner Hanson stated that the only issue that she would have is with the bright yellow background of the new sign. She asked the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 3 +rr" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES applicant if it could be in a color more like his building and the rest of his signs instead of yellow? Mr. Mull stated that the sign is already made. It came from another store he has in New Mexico and it fits the same box. It's an existing sign that he can use. If yellow is the issue, then Best Buy is the biggest issue to him and so is the deli on Highway 111 and San Pablo. He stated that he would bring in photographs of these businesses for the commission to review. Commissioner Hanson stated that they don't need to see photographs and Best Buy is a registered trademark and is allowed to use yellow in their sign. The ARC doesn't typically like yellow in general, but when it's a registered trademark they don't have any choice. Mr. Mull stated that if he has to re-order the sign it'll cost him $3,500-$3,800. Mr. Smith noted that it was his own choice to put up six signs without a permit. Mr. Mull stated that if there is a code then it should be enforced with everybody, not just him. This is his complaint. Commissioner Hanson stated that we don't know that they aren't being enforced separately. Unfortunately, the ARC doesn't get involved with that and they are here to answer what's before them today. Mr. Mull stated that he'll make the changes within the next four weeks and it'll cost him $3,500-$3,800. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he could put the sign up without illuminating it. The ARC is very careful about bright colors, not just yellow. If everyone starts competing with one another by who has the brightest sign, then we have a problem. The ARC tries to keep the signs subdued. It's not that they don't like yellow, it's any bright color. If he uses his current sign and doesn't illuminate it so we're not faced with that concern, is that something that the commissioners could approve? Commissioner Van Wet wanted to know if the applicant was proposing to remove all six menu signs. Mr. Mull stated that he would like to keep two of the signs and move the can up so that it's even with the fascia. He would like to keep the can sign, which is 8" deep. Commissioner Van Wet stated that the can needs depth for electrical, but if he's not going to light it then he should do something else and get rid of the can. Commissioner Gregory commented that the offer that he was suggesting was to utilize the sign and the can, relocate it and make it non-illuminated. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the yellow is such a bright color, even if it's non-illuminated, it will look almost banner-like. The sign is 16' in length. Commissioner Van Wet commented that the building has a simple design and has good lines. Right now it looks totally cluttered with signage including window signage. Commissioner Hanson stated that if the main sign had a dark background matching the menu items, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES she would approve it. The yellow is glaring and it doesn't go with anything else. Why would he want a bright yellow sign when everything else is so tastefully done. The sign will stick out like a sore thumb. She would prefer the existing sign to the yellow sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated if this was a new submittal and the sign hadn't been made, he wouldn't approve the yellow background. He's trying to consider the fact that the sign is already made, but he feels that it's going to be offensive. Commissioner Gregory stated that the ARC would like to offer possibilities and suggestions to work with what he has, if possible. If he can't, then he has options. Mr. Mull stated that he wants to eliminate the word "Touch" from his main sign because 75% of his clients live in gated communities. When his delivery truck tries to enter a gated community sometimes there is some confusion as to whether they are Tribal Touch or Tribal Rugs. His main business is rugs. 80% of his clientele are looking for rugs so he wants to change his business name to Tribal Rugs. Commissioner Hanson stated that she had to have a sign similar to his redone for her office. They were able to use the existing plexiglass and changed the lettering and it cost her $300. Mr. Mull stated that he agrees with her but his sign has been up for over seven years and has been weather beaten. When the letters are peeled off, there will be a faded area that will be visible and would look horrible. Commissioner Hanson stated that he could have a sign company put on a color over the top of the letters out from behind. He should check with a sign company because it's not that expensive to have the sign redone. He should do it in a way so that it matches everything else that he's doing. He could keep the existing can, move it up, leave two menu items there and he would be done. Mr. Mull stated that at this point he feels that it would be better to go before the council for the whole thing. He would also like to talk to the person who approved the deli signs that are bright screaming yellow on San Pablo. Mr. Bagato stated that the deli signs are temporary because they're supposed to be going through the facade enhancement program. The deli signs are non-illuminated. The signs were not approved by the ARC because they're temporary signs. Mr. Mull stated that if he doesn't illuminate the signs, then why can't he use the yellow sign. He stated that he'd rather not be in this meeting but would rather be in his store hoping for that little lost customer in the middle of the summer who shows up so that he can pay his bills and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 5 "�✓ `fir►` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES stay here. It's not much to ask unless the City's goal is to see how many vacancies they can get on Highway 111 and El Paseo every summer. He stated that he is willing to move the box up, put his yellow sign in it and illuminate it and remove all the menu signs. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved to relocate the can to the fascia, install the yellow plexiglass nonilluminated sign and use two menu signs maximum. There was no second to the motion, therefore, the motion died. Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) use existing can, (2) move sign up on fascia, (3) may change wording to "Tribal Rugs & More", (4) use colors compatible with existing menu items (not yellow), and (5) reduce number of menu items on the fascia to two. Motion carried 4-1-0-2 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM E. RAINEY JR., 44-489 Town Center Way, Suite D, #278, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a six foot block wall at 12 feet to face of curb. LOCATION: 73-498 Joshua Tree Street ZONE: R-1 Commissioner Hanson stated that the way that it was drawn isn't the way it would come across. She suggested pulling the wall back so that one part would come behind it and a wall would radius in front of it. Changes were made on the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the gates are solid or open. The son- in-law of the applicant stated that one of the gates would be solid and the other was unknown. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the gate is pretty tall and it would be nice if it were partially open. Commissioner Hanson stated that the photograph of a similar wall works so well because of what's behind it. She asked what was behind GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES the proposed wall. The applicant's representative stated that the house is still being designed so nothing is behind the wall. The idea is that the wall and the house will all go together. Commissioner Van Wet asked about the landscaping. Mr. Smith stated that the landscape plans will be submitted with the house plans and will be reviewed at that time. Commissioner Van Wet asked why the wall is being put in before the construction of the house. The representative stated that the owners are getting close to retirement and would like to get the process started. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it makes construction harder with access problems. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval with changes noted on plans. Motion carried 5-0- 0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 02-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEROME BEAUVAIS, 74-060 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of coverage exception, detached carport and a 7' high wood fence facing a public street with some sections within 15' from street curb face. LOCATION: 44-536, 44-574 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the neighborhood has been noticed relative to these exceptions. No one requested to speak to the matter. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 02-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEROME BEAUVAIS, 74-041 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of two carports with setbacks of 16' and 20' from curb face and a 7' high wood fence facing a public street with some sections within 15' from street curb face. LOCATION: 74-060 San Marino Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the neighborhood has been noticed relative to these exceptions. No one requested to speak to the matter. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: CUP 02-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEROME BEAUVAIS, 74-060 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport with setback 20' from curb face and a 7' high wood fence facing a public street. LOCATION: 74-041 San Marino Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the neighborhood has been noticed relative to these exceptions. No one requested to speak to the matter. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 6. CASE NO.: SA 03-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Jensen's Minute Shoppe LOCATION: 42-150 Cook Street, Cook Street Marketplace ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant would like to add bronze as an approved color to the sign program. Jim Engle, representative for Imperial Sign Co., stated that the total square footage for signage is 132 square feet. There is an area of 66 square feet on one face. Mr. Smith stated that the maximum he could use on the 54' face would be 52 square feet of sign. The sign on the north side would not be an issue at 90' of frontage. There is also a concern with having three menu items. They're only allowed two menu items. Mr. Engle stated that he spoke to the client about the number of menu items. The argument from the client is that they have a Palm Springs location with the words "Grocery, Liquor and Deli" and a location in Palm Desert with the same words. The location in La Quinta will have three menu items. The Rancho Mirage store has three menu items. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't think that the commission could approve three menu items. Commissioner Hanson stated that she could completely understand if the majority of the people here in the desert didn't know what Jensen's was. It's a very well known grocery store and there is no misconception about the fact that they sell groceries. She suggested that the word "Liquor" be eliminated. Commissioner Gregory stated that if their entire signage was their logo and if it were a copyrighted logo and it includes a menu provision, is the ARC allowed to approve it. Mr. Smith stated that the size of the signage would have to be reduced by 20% below the maximum. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if the signage was going to follow the curvature of the front of the building. Mr. Engle stated that he is going to follow the curvature and will match the radius. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval to add bronze as an approved color and the sign request revised subject to (1) reducing sign on west side of building to 52 square feet, and (2) eliminate one menu item from both front and &PIanning\Donna Qua iver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 9 hrr�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES side signs. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 7. 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 revised non-illuminated monument sign for apartment complex. LOCATION: 43-805 Monterey Avenue, Desert Pointe Apartments ZONE: R-2 Tony Bagato stated that this monument sign was before the commission two weeks ago when it was continued to allow the applicant to revise the plans. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CENTENNIAL HOMES, INC., 7533 Redwood Blvd., Novato, CA 94945 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of floor plans, elevations, perimeter walls and typical landscape plans for (4) model types in a 20-lot single family residential tract subdivision. LOCATION: 73-099 Hovley Lane West ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was concerned about carrying the front architecture around the sides and the back of the building G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES using the same type of detailing. If the windows are going to be inset then he would be fine with the plans. There is some detailing around the windows in certain plans but other areas have no detailing. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the exterior walls are 2 x 4. Dick Hunt, representative for Centennial Homes, stated that the exterior walls are 2 x 8 on the front and 2 x 6 on the sides. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the blocking for the nail-on windows be 2 x 4 and inset the windows. Also, the end caps don't seem to have anything to them. Mr. Hunt stated that he doesn't know what they're going to be yet. Commissioner Hanson commented that they should be appropriate to the architecture. Mr. Hunt stated that the fireplace industry has finally responded with some UL rated decorative spark arresters. Most builders won't do anything but a UL rated spark arrester and won't build a shroud because that typically voids the guarantee and the UL rating that comes with it. There are now some rated decorative spark arresters that he feels will be appropriate to the style of architecture. He could do decorative shrouds on a project of this scale. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on a notation on the plans that states that the setbacks, when possible, will have a 14' separation on the side yards. Commissioner Hanson stated that she looked at that and very few have less than 14'. Mr. Hunt stated that he can do all of the homes with 14' side yard setbacks. Diane Hollinger noted that she does not have landscaping at this time. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to (1) nail-on windows blocked with 2 x 4's with all windows recessed, (2) spark arrester and shroud plans to be part of final plan review, and (3) subject to approval by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: C 02-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TED GROULX, P.O. Box 14083, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised elevations. LOCATION: 73-261 Highway 111 (Tarbell Realty building) ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 1 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES Ted Groulx, applicant, stated that the fire department said that he would have to put sprinklers in the existing building as well as the new building. After talking with his engineer, he decided that it wasn't worthwhile to build a large addition onto the front. Therefore, he has revised the plans with the same front with one opening but with the square footage reduced to approximately 1,800 feet. He is going through the City's Facade Enhancement Program. The new plans have the same front and he was going to change it to one opening because Tarbell has decided to move out because they don't like the design and wanted something different. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had a site planning comment. The entry walk looks very awkward because they have it aligned so that it totally misses any striping on the end of the parking. It makes it off center and it looks "corny". He wondered if they could make it straight even though it would take off a piece of the painted stripe. It wouldn't be a big deal but the way it's planned is a big deal because it'll always look like a very funny mistake. Mr. Groulx stated that he doesn't have a problem doing that as long as some insurance company says that he can't do that. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 02-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SBA NETWORK SERVICES, INC./ CINGULAR WIRELESS, 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of plans for installation of wireless telecommunications tower with equipment shelter. LOCATION: 100 Kiva Drive (Bighorn Maintenance Yard) ZONE: PCD Mr. Bagato stated that this request has been before the commission a couple of times. The first time it was denied because it only had approval from Bighorn management and not the Landscape Committee. The applicant has returned with approval from the Landscape Committee at Bighorn. The applicant was in the process of filing an appeal and going to Planning Commission when the applicant withdrew G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 12 MkIl v*r' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES because the Landscape Committee at Bighorn didn't support it. The applicant contacted Mr. Bagato and informed him that the Landscape Committee changed their mind. Apparently the homeowners in the area had contacted them saying that they want more coverage in the area. Verizon is down the street at St. Margaret's Church which would cover some of this area. Currently, that's the only tower in south Palm Desert and it can't cover the whole area. Staffs original position was that even though there are no palm trees in Bighorn Mountains golf course, the location of the proposed monopalm was in line of sight of many palm trees located north of this site. Even though there are no palm trees in this location, with approval from the Landscape Committee at Bighorn we would move forward because there are many palm trees directly across the tree that would provide a foreground and a background going north or south on Highway 74. Another concern was if in the future Bighorn decided to install landscaping. Would we restrict the country club from having palm trees in their landscape palette? We wouldn't restrict them from adding palm trees. The applicant, Doug Kearney, was present. The proposed location is on the corner of Kiva Drive and Highway 74, within the maintenance yard at Bighorn. It's a total of 50' to the antennae, which are located inside the "pineapple". The top of the tree is 58' and the base of the pole is 24" in diameter. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he doesn't have a problem with it since the homeowner's association has approved it. He agrees that it doesn't really work over there but it impacts the Bighorn residents more than anybody else. He has more concern about the equipment shelter. Mr. Kearney stated that a U wall on a 2' berm surrounds the equipment shelter so the equipment will be below the wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Bighorn has a strong landscape committee and he's surprised that they approved it. Commissioner Gregory stated that it looks like they're proposing a date palm for the tower. Mr. Kearney stated that he'll make sure that they use a Washingtonia palm for the tower. Diane Hollinger asked why the tower couldn't go across the street at the Canyons where they have about 1,200 palm trees and it would blend in really well. Mr. Kearney stated that the elevation is lower at the Canyons. Commissioner Vuksic asked why he couldn't use a faux boulder for a telecommunications tower. Mr. Kearney stated that in the Bighorn area he would have to get electrical and telephone across private property, which would be very difficult to obtain. In addition, the bighorn sheep are in this area, which would be another issue. Commissioner Vuksic G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES stated that the ARC approved a faux boulder last week at the top of Highway 74 where it starts to meander. Wouldn't that location serve Bighorn? Mr. Kearney stated that this is not the primary objective of this site. There's a dip in Highway 74 that's in between where the church is and Bighorn. As an added benefit, Bighorn will get service as well. Mr. Bagato stated that when he met with Sprint on site they did want to see if it was a big enough site to have a second carrier on the same site. There wasn't enough room on that site for two carriers because they had to get the boulder around the hill to face down the hill. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it seems like there are endless sites there. Mr. Bagato stated that it comes down to a matter of access and where they can have electrical and cable to a hillside lot. There aren't too many lots available. The currently approved site with a faux boulder is located on a CVWD parcel. If they had to get easements through private property in Bighorn it would practically be impossible. Mr. Kearney stated that the dead spot that he's trying to cover is a stretch between Highway 74 and Mesa View Drive. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's going to vote against this because it sounds like there are other options. He's not convinced that this is the best spot for a monopalm. He thinks that adding palms in the proposed location would not look appropriate. Mr. Kearney stated that the palms can easily be changed to Washingtonia palms. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved to deny the request. No second was made, therefore, the motion died. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to monopalm being a Washingtonia palm. Motion carried 3-1-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed, Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 01-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE FOUNTAINS, 2020 West Rudasill Road, Tucson, AZ 85704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amend previous approval of 59 assisted living units and replace with 31 casitas. LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive ZONE: PR-10 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U N E 24, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson asked where the mechanical equipment is located. Jim Gobel, representative for The Fountains, stated that the equipment will be located on the roof. They had an assisted living project that was approved last year. They priced it out and ran a feasibility study on fifty units and they determined that if they built it they would lose money for quite a while. They have sold out of the first phase of the casitas which will be ready in August. He welcomed the commission to come and see the product in person. He would like to add more of the freestanding casita units and work on their clubhouse to include a workout facility and activity area. In the initial design of the assisted living they had a movie theater, spa and fitness center. They're adding less units to the previously approved plan but it's a change from what's been approved. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's fine with everything but couldn't see where he was going to put his equipment. Mr. Gobel stated that they have very high parapets that will screen the mechanical equipment. There's also an equipment yard near the pool. On the casitas, the equipment will go on the roofs. The clubhouse equipment will be housed in the pool equipment yard. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the roof-mounted equipment must be completely screened from view. Mr. Gobel stated that there is also an equipment room inside the clubhouse. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 03-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSJ: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 El Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for a two-story, 24,500 square foot office building. LOCATION: 74-812 Technology Drive, University Business Center ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Commissioner Van Vliet asked to see a color board to see what materials are going to be used. Mr. Urbina showed the commission a picture of decorative paving similar to what is going to be used. He doesn't know if there will be a pattern or joints. Staff is requesting a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES revised landscape plan that shows shade trees in the courtyard adjacent to the benches and also palm trees in the front to better define the entrance. Commissioner Hanson asked about the specific location of the proposed office building. Mr. Smith stated that the location is at Gerald Ford and Cook Street behind the Hampton Inn. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the exterior will have different paint colors and textures. They intend to use smooth and light dash plaster. The smooth occurs on special elements such as the monolithic elements and dash occurs on the larger bodies. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the building is handsome. Commissioner Gregory commented on the light bollards in the courtyard area, which are in a funny location relative to the handicap access and also the main pedestrian access area. They don't seem to relate to how they should be working. They might need to take a look at this. The design is very open. Diane Hollinger stated that the landscape design will not be included in the motion. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of architecture only. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous 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: Review and comments on architectural design revision. Applicant will present color elevations for comment. LOCATION: 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive This item was placed under miscellaneous because plans were not presented in advance for the commission to review. Mr. Smith stated that a project has been approved about a year ago at 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. It was approved as a warehouse/industrial office complex and consisted of five buildings. The location is on the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR030624.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES north side of Gerald Ford east of Cook Street. It's across from the university campus, close to the curve in Gerald Ford. Hank Gotthelf, applicant, stated that he is the principal of NSD Ventures and he is in escrow for the purchase of the land from the ownership that had presented the original concept which was passed by this commission and was approved. As he went through the purchase negotiations for the site and reviewing the plans that were approved, the economics of those buildings which were concrete block and highly designed buildings could not fit on this site from an economic standpoint. He would like to use tilt-up construction and is here for approval of a new elevation design. He will still be constructing five buildings. He would like the ARC to provide some direction, thoughts and consideration of the architecture. They're looking to do a new design and hopefully something that the commission will be happy with. It's going to be a high-tech office/industrial park. Matt Brady, representative from Ware Malcomb, is present to answer questions. Commissioner Hanson asked to see a site plan. Mr. Gotthelf stated that he can provide the past site plan for the commission to review. Mr. Brady stated that there are five lots and they're not changing too much. Each lot had a building in the middle of it, which is basically the same plan. They're going to provide a full submittal in the near future. They're working out the details of how the buildings are going to fit on the site. There are two lots on Gerald Ford. The buildings are tilt-up concrete construction with green glass. The exterior colors are of the desert palette. The entries will use a form liner with a stone pattern. It relates well to all the stone you see when you look around the area. There are painted metal canopies that are suspended from cables. The buildings on Gerald Ford are single story but they did articulate the height at the entries. The landscaping plan will be developed for the full submittal. Commissioner Hanson asked if there will be additional entries into the buildings on Gerald Ford. Mr. Brady stated that there are two entries so that the building could be divided. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the use of materials. The stone product is very beautiful. The architecture is rather plain and it will appear very boxy. She hopes that there's something else that they can do to break it up. The whole parapet line is exactly the same. Commissioner Vuksic concurred with Commissioner Hanson. He had concerns about the depth of what they're representing. It looks interesting with the use of different colors, but when it's built it will look almost flat. This is such a large building that it needs to have several G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES feet worth of offset for it to work. In areas where there is the stone pattern, is it on one plane? Mr. Brady stated that it's one plane with two textures. He'll accentuate the reveal to set the stone apart from the deeper reveal but they would be on the same plane. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the parking structure at the mall has different textures on the same plane and they look like veneer applications. If you take the texture and make a form out of it, it looks a lot more substantial and rich. There is some concern about the green glass. The commission has turned down a lot of reflective glass. This looks like it's pretty tastefully done. Mr. Brady stated that they are considering using reflective glass. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he would consider using something not as reflective. Mr. Brady commented that there's a trade off. The nice thing about reflective glass is that the building looks good when it's done. It doesn't matter what they do inside. If they're putting boxes up against the windows they'll be visible. If you use vision glass, particularly later in the evening when you can see in more, you will see whatever is going on in there. He's done buildings that use both. He likes it but on the other hand if the tenants are doing things with the blinds, if they're stacking things up or if there are plants in the windows it doesn't look as clean on the outside. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that after the meeting the applicant should go to the corner of Portola and Highway 111 and look at the two fairly new buildings there. There's an art gallery and an office building. You'll see reflective glass and non-reflective glass and you'll see what he's concerned about. Mr. Brady stated that he has a challenge with the glass. There is an area at the upper part of the building where there is no office. If they use vision glass it's going to be open to the framing above. With reflective glass they can get light into this space and it still looks good from the outside or they can use spandrel glass. They have an opportunity to control the way it looks now and into the future. Commissioner Hanson commented that the desert is really bad for reflective glass. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't really see someone stacking boxes against the spots where he sees glass. Those look like entries. Mr. Brady stated that he doesn't want to seem like he doesn't want to change the glass. He's trying to explain why they've chosen to go this way. Commissioner Hanson stated that his reasons make sense but somehow he's going to have to get around the commission's aversion to reflective glass. Commissioner Gregory commented that he wanted to bring up a point as a non-architect. This is an office development and what he's looking at looks like a very nicely designed industrial building. It's superbly designed. He wonders if his thought ties in with what Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Qua iver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES Hanson said earlier about how if this were an office development, it does seem to be very plain. It's very handsome in an industrial sense, but he doesn't get an office feeling which may be because of lack of windows. Mr. Brady stated that this is not a pure office park. This is an office industrial park. The back three buildings will definitely be industrial use. Commissioner Hanson asked if the front two buildings will have roll-up doors. Mr. Brady stated that the front two buildings will have the possibility of roll-up doors along the back side of the building. The whole zone is office/industrial as it was defined through planning and through the process of the approval. Steve Melzer and Allen Bixen from Industrial West, as brokers, are recommending that the utilization of the two front buildings might very well go to an office-type use and it's for that reason that the development is skewed on the front buildings towards a possibility for office users. The entire project could be all light industrial, office and warehouse-type use. He doesn't think that the commission should take the position that this is an office park. It's an office/industrial park. He wants to be able to put in more windows if the need arises. Commissioner Gregory asked how he would do that with a tilt-up structure. Mr. Brady stated that there are knock out panels. The structure is designed to be able to knock out holes for windows. Commissioner Hanson stated that some consideration should be given to the front two buildings if they already believe that they're going to be used for office space. The design direction needs to go towards office use. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the architecture of the front buildings is more important than the back buildings. Mr. Gotthelf stated that there's no doubt that the buildings along Gerald Ford will have to have some knock out panels for glass for the tenants. He would rather be able to knock out panels than put in more glass to begin with. Commissioner Gregory stated that he doesn't think that he has to do that. The City is going to be looking at the two front buildings. Even if the buildings aren't going to be used for office space initially, they can always put in the openings and use spandrel glass. It should be shown that way to start with, not the other way around. The applicant will have G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 19 'rr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JUNE 24, 2003 MINUTES a better chance of getting through this whole process if they look at it in that sense. If the two buildings that they show on Gerald Ford are used on the rear portion of the site they would be excellent. Mr. Gotthelf agreed. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR030624.MIN 20