Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-13 . , `�r "``�'�` ����-\ CITY OF PALM DESERT ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • • MINUTES MAY 13, 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 9 0 Kristi Hanson X 7 2 Richard O'Donnell X 8 1 Chris Van Vliet X 9 0 John Vuksic X 8 1 Ray Lopez X 9 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of April 22, 2003. The motion carried 6-0-0-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 , , �i,,,r► "�1� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinas 1. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): WESTFIELD CORPORATION, 72- 840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of sign program for Westfield Shoppingtown. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that the west parking structure (facing Best Buy) has one existing sign, which is 170 square feet, according to their drawing, and is 8'/2' x 20'. Commissioner Hanson stated that this structure is for parking and is not a building. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there shouldn't be any tenant signs on any of the parking structures. Mr. Smith stated that based on the size of the stucture they're allowed 142 square feet of signage. On the north side of the same parking structure, they have 174 square feet of permitted space for signage. The proposed signage there is 156 square feet. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he's having a problem understanding why they're allowed so much since this is not a building. Mr. Smith stated that the parking structure near JC Penneys on the east side facing Monterey the structure size is 230' which allows for 133 square feet of signage. The Westfield sign already installed is 170 square feet. They want to add JC Penneys at 75 square feet and a "to be determined" sign at 90 square feet. There are four mall entry signs proposed, two on the north side and two on the south side. The two on the north side comply area-wise, but both of them are hidden behind the parking structures. The only place you see them is when you're walking off the second deck because they put them so high and they're so large that they read as "super graphics". On the Barnes & Noble plan, they have a "to be determined" sign shown, but with the approval of the Barnes & Noble sign we'll have to see if they have any square footage left. Commissioner Hanson asked how Westfield got a sign installed without ever going through the process. This is very frustrating. Now they're asking for approval for something that's already up there and is clearly over the limit. The members of the ARC donate their time and it's a waste of time to sit here doing something that's already done. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R030513.MIN 2 , . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that a similar situation happened at the Gardens at EI Paseo. The City paid for a portion of their parking structure and also the parking structures at Westfield. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that there's no signage on the parking structure at The Gardens. It's a parking garage. That's a precedent. Commissioner Gregory commented that in terms of a service to people who aren't familiar with where JC Penney is, would it be okay to have a small directional sign on the face of the parking structure so that people know if they're parking in the right place? Commissioner Hanson stated that she thought that this would be great except that the sign would probably be obliterated by the size of the lights. Commissioner Gregory asked if the lights were being changed. Dave Hokanson had said that he was working on it, however, he's no longer with Westfield. Commissioner Hanson commented that lights just as big as the lights on the parking structure were installed in front of Barnes & Noble. Directional signage would be appropriate, but large signage is not. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested adding ground-mounted directional signage where you enter the parking garage and not up on the wall somewhere. Commissioner Hanson concurred and said that it should be at human scale. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that everything there is oversized. Commissioner Hanson stated that as you drive in the back road to come into the parking structure, that there could be some small signs, similar to the signs coming into the project, that would have a name of a major store with an arrow. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred and stated that thematically they could continue along with that. That would make an architectural sign. Commissioner Hanson commented that the way that Westfield has gone about this whole project has been to discount everything that the ARC says and ignore us. If they had tried to work with us a little better, they wouldn't be in the position that they're in now. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. The more radical our position, the more likely our position will be discounted. Commissioner Hanson stated that they were discounted anyway without even being considered. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the garage at The Gardens doesn't have any signage on it and the parking garage "goes away". He lives in the neighborhood and drives by it everyday and he doesn't see the parking garage anymore. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it's also much lower in scale. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred and stated that they have plenty of room for signage, but they didn't use it G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030513.MIN 3 , . �w` "�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES for signage. Commissioner Hanson stated that the purpose of the parking structure is not to promote Westfield, it's to promote the businesses in the mall and to park people. If they wanted to use it for tenant signs, then that's what they should have used it for. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if this was a parking lot and not a parkir�g structure, there's no way we would allow signage there. How is this different? Is it different because it's blocking your view of the building where they could have signage? Commissioner Hanson stated that they're not putting signage on to promote the tenants. They're adding signage to promote the Westfield name. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the entry signage in both cases, especially the south elevation entry, is way too big for that element. Sign C is about 102 square feet. Commissioner Hanson stated that iYs 6'5" tall and 16' in length and is huge. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the JA and JC south elevation signs should be substantially reduced and lowered on the building just above the entry. There is also a question whether they should be internally lit or not. They're red and very bright. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the way that they're shown with the architecture, the architectural elements clearly become backdrops for the sign. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why Westfield needs to have their name on every entrance. Sign C is 6'6" x 16'. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there still aren't any details showing, for example, how big the "W" is. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's probably 4' high. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request to approve existing signage and proposed new signage (Robinson's May and Macy's) on the west parking structure because the parking structure does not qualify for signage. Commission suggested that a pedestrian level directional sign be considered directing customers to the majors. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request to approve 100 square foot signs over south entrances with direction given to the applicant to substantially reduce the sign size and lower signage on building. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve signage over north entries. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030513.MIN 4 . • �.r' �rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request to approve proposed TBD sign on south elevation with direction given to the applicant to (1) lower sign to 18' elevation height on masonry, and (2) that the size of the TBD sign be determined after the size of Barnes & Noble signage has been determined. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 2. CASE NO.: CUP 85-02 Amendment#2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO, 1450 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405 HOLT ARCHITECTS, TIMOTHY HOLT, 41-555 Cook Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of addition to existing Sacred Heart School. LOCATION: 43-775 Deep Canyon Road, Sacred Heart Church ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: SA 02-220 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BRUCE R. BAUMANN, DDS, 44-239 Monterey Ave, Palm Desert, CA 92260 SIGNS BY MEL, Mel Wachs, 41-841 Beacon Hill, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of plans for monument sign for dental office. LOCATION: 44-239 Monterey Avenue ZONE: OP G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R030513.MIN $ • � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the applicant appealed the last decision of the ARC but they weren't present when the matter was discussed. The only avenue that was available to them was to come back to the ARC with a new application. They have changed the sign so it's an illuminated cabinet sign with a routed out face and the letters pushed through. This is an attractive sign and staff recommends approval. The freestanding sign is the same size as the original submittal. Mel Wachs, representative from Signs by Mel, was present and stated that he realized that there was a question with blending the sign in with the building, therefore, he made the face of the sign the same color as the building and made the letters silver to match the silver letters on the wall sign. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he drove by the site and he could barely see the wall sign because of the palm trees. Commissioner Hanson suggested trimming the palms. Mr. Wachs stated that two of the palms are going to be removed and donated to the City. There are a number of examples of buildings that have wall signs and monument signs, but currently the ARC has been approving one or the other. Commissioner Hanson commented that when the signs are so close together you really don't need both. There is way too much signage on Monterey Avenue with many businesses having both a wall sign and monument sign. If you eliminate two palm trees the wall sign will be more visible. Mr. Wachs commented that it seems like the wall sign is hard to see coming north or south on Monterey until you're right in front of it. The wall sign says "Dr. Baumann, DDS & Associates" but it doesn't say anything about dentistry on it. Commissioner Hanson stated that if they eliminate the wall sign and put in the monument sign, won't Dr. Baumann be getting what he wants since you can't see the wall sign anyway? Mr. Wachs wants both signs because Dr. Baumann feels that people can't find his office, perhaps because the sign doesn't have the word "Dentist" on it. Dr. Baumann feels that this is a problem and would like to have something where his patient's can easily find the office. Sometimes patients do see the wall sign but they're not sure where to turn so the monument sign would act as a directional. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he was inclined not to approve the monument sign because there are too many monument signs on Monterey. He understands the issue that Dr. Baumann has but that could be the same argument for every business on Monterey Avenue. If every business comes in looking for a sign for the east, west and aerial views it gets to be a little bit onerous as far as signage. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R030513.MIN 6 � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA There's too much signage. This is an opportunity at this point to vote for denial. Mr. Wachs asked about the aspect of having the monument sign blending in with the building and being small. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it's still a sign and that's the objection. He objects to the removal of the two palm trees. He would rather see the palm trees there. However, he realizes that you can't see the wall sign, therefore, the palms would have to be removed. On both sides of the street in the vicinity, there are wall signs everywhere. Is the point of the signage to identify the location for the patients? The doctor isn't going to get walk-ins. Mr. Wachs stated that the point is for advertising so that people know that there is a dentist at this location. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it is advertising. Commissioner Lopez asked about the removal of the palm trees. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he feels that iYs necessary so that the wall sign is visible. Commissioner Hanson stated that she thinks that the palms should not be removed. Mr. Smith stated that Spencer Knight looked at the location and two of the palms are right in front of the wall sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the palms could be relocated to another part of the property. Commissioner Gregory commented that he doesn't see how the palms could be relocated. Mr. Wachs stated that the two right-most palms would be removed and replaced with smaller palms. Commissioner Hanson stated that this would be okay. Commissioner Gregory commented that when the palms are removed and there's a scarred landscape leftover, it should be understood that the landscape will be brought up to "snuff' pursuant to the City Landscape Manager. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has been working with the Landscape Manager's office relative to getting permission to remove the trees and also where the trees are going to go. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved for denial of the monument sign. Motion died for lack of a second. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of the monument sign subject to removal of the wall sign. Motion carried 5-1-0-0 with Commissioner O'Donnell opposed. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-57 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030513.MIN � . • '� `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of sign and awning program for EI Paseo Square. LOCATION: EI Paseo and San Pablo ZONE: C1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: SA 03-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� QUIEL BROS. SIGN CO., NANCY SNELL, 272 S. I Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of two 3-sided internally illuminated monument signs for shopping center. LOCATION: 72-800 Highway 111, Palms to Pines Center ZONE: C1 Mr. Bagato stated that there was a previous submitall for monument signs at this location in October of 2002. At that time, the applicant was directed to return with an alternative design. Revised plans have been submitted for review. Commissioner Hanson stated that she does not see the necessity of having monument signs because you can clearly see the wall signs from the road. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what kind of signs are currently at this location. Mr. Bagato stated that there's an existing small sign for the center that says "Palms to Pines". Commissioner Hanson commented that you can clearly see the signs for Tweeter's and Staples from the road. Nancy Snell, representative for Quiel Bros. Sign Company, was present and stated that she had previously presented a proposal for signs that were much larger. She has reduced the size of the monument signs and incorporated the colors that are currently on the Tweeter's building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030513.MIN g . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA The sign has been greatly reduced. Her client would like to have two monument signs with V-shaped faces so that traffic traveling each way on Highway 111 can see the signs. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed with Commissioner Hanson. He doesn't see the need for more monument signs. Commissioner Hanson commented that the proposed mon�ment signs haven't been reduced very much from the original submittal. The height is the same, less the peaked roof. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be possible for the client to consider a project identification sign in lieu of the proposed signs. Historically, the ARC has a hard time with menu- type signs. Diane Hollinger asked if the proposed locations are in Cal Trans right- of-way. Commissioner Gregory stated that they appear to be out of the right-of-way. Mr. Smith stated that the code section that allows for the freestanding sign refers to center identification signs. Typically, we have had the center identified and occasionally, in a less substantial form, some tenants (i.e. Desert Crossing). Commissioner Hanson commented that when the ARC reviewed the previously proposed plans Staples wasn't built yet and Tweeter's wasn't finished. The ARC didn't have the opportunity to drive by there and realize just how visible those signs are. She doesn't see the need for monument signs. Similarly to the last submittal, there is a redundancy in the signage. The points where it becomes important to have a sign that lists many different tenants is when those signs are not visible from the street or those buildings are not visible. That is clearly not the case here. If the applicant would like to identify the shopping center itself, that would be fine. In some smaller, tasteful manner similar to Desert Crossing put up some menu signs. The proposed signs identifying a building that you can clearly see the sign for is inappropriate. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the center fronts on both EI Paseo and Highway 111, therefore, there could be signage requested in both the front and rear. There is a good case for redundancy. If the signage were low and you couldn't see it from the roadways, then that's another reason for considering a monument sign. The existing signage is clearly visible. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030513.MIN 9 • ' '�r'r "� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA Ms. Snell understood that her client can identify the center. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to deny the request because there is a redundancy in the signage. Signs on buildings are clearly visible from the street. A suggestion was made to consider a shopping center identification sign and smaller tenant signs. Motion carried 5-1-0-0 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed. 6. CASE NO.: SA 03-52 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: A & A SIGNS, 33124 Turner Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of revised business signage. Barnes & Noble LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown, Barnes & Noble ZONE: P.C. 3 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has returned with revised plans and has reduced the letter size from 48" to 42". The direction that the ARC had given the applicant at the last meeting was to reduce the letter size to 36". The applicant has shown that the area proposed will comply at 112 square feet. There is a little bit of run-over from today's Westfield proposal. On the same fascia Westfield has shown a TBD sign, which will not be able to be approved because this sign will use most of all of that sign area. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the scale from the Westfield plan is the one that the ARC was working toward. The scale for the Barnes & Noble sign appears to be much bigger than that shown on the Westfield plan. This is why the sign was recommended at 36" as opposed to 48". We want the scale to be appropriate, not just to comply with the requirements. It should look aesthetically correct on that face. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR030513.MIN 1� • ' �ru` `�r+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if the letter size is reduced by 6" it will not significantly impact the visibility. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred. Shane Harvey, representative for Barnes & Noble was present and stated that they did take to heart the comments that were mentioned in the April 22, 2003 meeting. They did an extensive study with the different types of sign sizes on the building facade. They drew a 48" sign, a 42" sign and a 36" sign and they agreed that the 48" sign did appear to be too big proportionately. They also felt that a 36" sign appeared a little bit too small proportionately. Therefore, they felt that a 42" sign was about right with the wall space which is 33' x 13'. Commissioner Gregory asked about other signs which have been approved at Westfield Shoppingtown. If Barnes & Noble is restricted to 36", are they being penalized with a more conservative approach if other stores may have letters that do meet the sign ordinance provision? Commissioner Hanson stated that the current submittal for Robinson's May is only 30" tall, but it's obviously a longer name. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the original submittal was almost billboard-like. When you take a little off of the lettering, all of a sudden it becomes a part of the architecture. He sees a dramatic difference with the minor change in the size of lettering. Commissioner Hanson stated that she is sympathetic to the fact that the applicant is opening up a new store, but she commented that everybody is talking about the new facade and how much they love it. She doesn't feel that the applicant is going to have an issue about anybody not understanding who's in that particular spot. It's extremely visible from the street. It's a beautiful addition. She suggested that the applicant be careful about the size of the signage so that it doesn't broadcast itself. Mr. Harvey stated that Barnes & Noble feels that a 36" sign is a little lost in the amount of space that's on that wall and a 42" sign balances it more appropriately. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the ARC obviously feels differently. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to make sure that the applicant wasn't being unfairly penalized for having an attractive facade. Commissioner Hanson commented that even if the letters were reduced to 36" in height, they have the ability to slightly separate the letters to make it a little bit broader which would appropriately fill the space. The applicant had said that they pushed the letters together in order to get the 42" letters to fit. Mr. Harvey concurred. They looked at separating the 36" letters and they felt that the spacing felt too loose G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR030513.MIN 1 1 . • �+„ � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA between the letters. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they certainly weren't penalizing Barnes & Noble. He reminded the applicant that there are going to be people inside who are going to be entering the store from the inside so the signage from the outside isn't really as important as it might be if it were a stand alone store. Commissioner Hanson stated that to be sensitive to the fact that the applicant is worried about the way the sign will fit on the facade. Just because they have a big space it really becomes more a part of the architecture if the sign is just a bit smaller and doesn't become a billboard. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to letter size being 36" in height, as opposed to the requested 42" high letters. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 02-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� JEROME BEAUVAIS, 74-060 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requesting approval of a proposed 10' x 20' detached carport, an attached 10' x 40' , existing architecture for a residential structure containing a main unit and second unit that was remodeled without full building permits, and approval of an existing 7' high wood fence facing a public street. LOCATION: 74-041 San Marino Circle ZONE: R-1 Francisco Urbina presented photographs and site plan for the residence on San Marino Circle. The applicant is before the ARC today to seek approval to construct two carports. One carport would be a two-car tandom carport to provide covered parking for an existing attached second unit which the applicant is seeking approval to a conditional use permit that the City Council will make a decision on May 22, 2003. The other carport is a one pad carport to provide covered parking to the main unit. This house was originally constructed in 1940 and the applicant did some remodeling and renovation. The applicant also installed wood fencing that he thought would compliment the Craftsman-style architecture. The carport would have some columns with stone on the outside and 6" x 6" rough-sawn wood posts and rough-sawn beams. The fascia would cover an opaque fiberglass roof, but the ends will not be visible due to the rough-sawn wood fascia. Staff recommends approval of the two carports and approval of the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030513.MIN IZ . - �w°' �; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA existing wood fencing facing the public street at the height of 7'. Commissioner Hanson asked if all the setback requirements have been met. Mr. Urbina stated that this is one of the reasons that the fencing is before the ARC. Normally, fencing that is 4'-6' in height needs to be a minimum of 15' back from the face of the curb. In this case, portions of the fence are as close as 11' from face of the rurb and some sections of the fence exceed the 6' maximum. The fencing has already been constructed and does not appear to pose any safety issues or aesthetic concerns. The applicant is present to answer questions. Jerry Beauvais, applicant, added that this was one of the first homes to be built in Palm Desert and is located near Portola and Highway 111. Most of the fencing is this area is within 10', 8', 5' from the curb. IYs not unusual to see fencing practically right on the street. Financially speaking, he can build a wooden fence but not a block wall. He feels that he can do more architecturally with wood and using Craftsman- style architecture to make it blend in with the setting using appropriate lattice, landscaping, etc... His argument for a 6' wooden fence is that it looks like a 6' wooden fence. It has a yard-separating look to it. The trellis on the top is something that you can see through and it's also a support for bougainvilleas and becomes more appealing to the eye. He could chop the trellis off the top of the fence but it changes it from a 6' wooden fence going around the perimeter of a property to an architectural detail that blends in really successfully. The carports would also blend in nicely with the house. He would use detail that's typical in Pasadena with bronze lanterns, using real rock and doing it in the Craftsman-style look. Any new materials such as the corrugated fiberglass would be hidden behind the fascia so that you wouldn't be able to see it. It would just provide UV protection for the cars. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't have any problem with the design aspect and the fact that he's infringed on setbacks. His major concern is how the wood will hold up over time. He asked the applicant how he will maintain the wood so that it still looks great 5-10 years from now. He asked how the applicant planned to slow down the inevitable curling, cracking, splitting and warping. Mr. Beauvais stated that he builds the fences the same way that his grandfathers did it in Michigan. The things they built at the turn of the last century are still standing. Michigan gets very hot and humid in the summer and freezing cold and wet in the winter. The fences that he built on San Marino Circle were stained, not painted. Then they were glazed to make them look even older. The truth of the matter is that when the fences were completed five years ago, they looked newly painted and now they have a patina. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030513.MIN 13 • ' �ri►' `�i+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA Commissioner Gregory commented that the ARC recognizes the passion and talent of the applicant. Where we have to be careful is that most of the other people don't have the passion or the talent. Therefore, they're very careful about approving wood fences. Most people put them up and a few years later they fall apart and become an eyesore. In the currently proposed case, if the ARC were to allow them they would have to feel comfortable that there's some provision for long-term maintenance. Mr. Beauvais commented that the fences are built out of cedar. If wood survives 4-5 summers, all the major warping is going to happen in the first few years. Those fences have been there for a while and other fences that he's built have been there for ten years. They look as they did when they were built. A block wall is so utilitarian looking. Commissioner Lopez commented that he has a friend who has wood fences that were built in 1990 and they have dogs in their backyard. The dogs are pushing the wood fence over. The other thing that was pulling the fences over is bougainvilleas. Bougainvilleas can get really big and heavy if they're not maintained. He was hoping that the applicant was going to reinforce the fencing with posts placed closer together. Rather than having them 8' apart, put them 4' apart to help stabilize the fence. Mr. Beauvais stated that he uses wolmanized (pressure treated) posts and they last. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the type of footing that was used. Mr. Beauvais stated the posts are set into a lot of concrete 24" in depth with 8" of gravel below that. Any water run-off is not collected at the bottom of the post and is allowed to dissipate into the earth. The wood fences look historic and look appropriate for this old neighborhood because it's where a lot of homes were built in the late 1930's and 1940's. Commissioner Gregory stated that not too long ago the ARC allowed someone to do something with the provision that they were responsible for maintenance or some kind of time clock. He wondered if a time clock could be put on this. Mr. Smith reminded Mr. Gregory that a time restriction was put on the batting cage on Willow. Commissioner Hanson asked if this could be a unique approval from the standpoint of appropriate architectural design. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the fence height and why the applicant didn't put in a 5' fence with 1' of lattice on top, as opposed to 6' with 1' of lattice. Mr. Beauvais stated that people could look over a 5' high fence. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030513.MIN 14 . • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA Commissioner Hanson commented that another thing that the applicant has done well is the addition of built up planters near the fence, which brings the scale of the height down. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he loves what the applicant is doing. He commented that he accidentally walked by this property recently and he thought that it was wonderFul. He is concerned about precedence, but he could see granting an exception for architectural merit. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the City should have historical guidelines. Some of the issues that we're looking at would be mute because what we'd be looking at is preserving historic homes. The fencing that's stained looks monolithic, as opposed to the door that's unfinished. Mr. Beauvais stated that he's going to stain the unfinished portions of the fence and doors. Commissioner O'Donnell urged staff to discuss with the Planning Director the concept of a historical zone or provisions for the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the applicant get permits for work that's been done to the home. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval based on architectural merit, subject to staining unfinished portions of fence and gate to match remaining. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 8. CASE NO.: PP 02-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: STEPHEN R. NIETO, 78-120 Calle Estado, Suite 206, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for proposed 5,182 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-750 Village Court ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of architecture only by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030513.MIN 15 • • �`,,�" � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA 9. CASE NO.: PP 02-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� THE BRALY TRUST, P.O. Box 949, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of color change for exterior of new office building. LOCATION: 44-751 Village Court ZONE: O.P. Tony Bagato distributed the original color samples to the Commission which were three different earth tones. The applicant is proposing two colors which are relatively close in color. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant why she didn't like the colors that were originally submitted. Marilyn Braly, applicant, stated that she didn't even know what colors were submitted by the architect. The architect didn't ask Ms. Braly for her approval before submitting the colors. She is working with an interior designer and she felt that the colors should coordinate with what they're using on the inside of the building. Ms. Braly showed the Commission pictures that she's taken of other buildings on Village Court. The only other building on this street with three colors is Ruth's Chris Restaurant, which has a different architectural concept than an office building. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the glass and aluminum mullions. Ms. Braly stated that they didn't change from the original submittal. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he didn't feel that having two colors is an issue, however, whether the two colors blend too close together could be a problem. Ms. Braly stated that the Franklin Loan building uses similar colors to the colors she's proposing. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 10. CASE NO.: TT 29468-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONEBRIDGE PALM DESERT, LLC, Michael Prock, 3525 Lomita Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030513.MIN 16 . • �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 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 Francisco Urbina stated that the conditions of approval when this went before preliminary review by the ARC was that the elevations that show stone on the front of plans 1 & 4 were to be changes so that the stonework wrap around the sides. The applicant is here to request relief from that condition. Alan Levine, Stonebridge representative, stated that he spoke to the architect, Len Noble, and his concern was about the cap and the cap wraps around the other side. If you extend the stone beyond the cap it doesn't create the architectural illusion of it being a column, which is what he would like to do. At the last meeting he was asked to extend the stonework to a party wall so that it looked like it just didn't end in the middle of the stucco. Commissioner Hanson suggested lowering the actual wainscot height to 5'6" and tie it back to the side yard wall. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic moved for approval of plan 1 subject to (1) lower wainscot wall to 5'6" and (2) bring stonework back to side yard wall. Plan 4 will remain as shown on elevations submitted. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 11. CASE NO.: SA 03-57 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval and consideration of amendment to building B of EI Paseo Square. LOCATION: EI Paseo and San Pablo ZONE: C1 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add the above item to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR030513.MIN 1� . • `�r' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is requesting final approval of building B of EI Paseo Square. As part of the approval, there is an amendment to the elevation. On the original submittal the two towers are identical and on the amended plans the two towers are somewhat different. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 02-07 AMEND 1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Cyn Avenue, Bldg. D, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of co-location of Verizon wireless telecommunications antennae on approved mono-pine tower. LOCATION: 76-055 Country Club Drive, SCE Concha substation ZONE: PR Mr. Smith stated that the ARC previously approved a mono-pine on this site. Working within the existing approval the applicant is looking at adding a second array to provide for a second server. This is very consistent with the goals of the ordinance which encourages co- location. Bob Hanrath, Verizon representative, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the current equipment shelter on site. Mr. Hanrath stated that the shelter has been approved, however, it hasn't been constructed. Sprint cabinets tend to be about 8' tall. The Verizon equipment shelter will be 11' x 16' and tan in color. Mr. Bagato stated that the equipment shelters generally aren't any higher than any walls on the property. Mr. Hanrath stated that digging down in an SCE substation is a very touchy subject because of grounding issues. There is a substantial amount of landscaping around this project. SCE would not allow Verizon to dig down into the substation. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the structure has to be 11' in height and the other competitors use 8' structures. Mr. Hanrath G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030513.MIN 1 g . • �rr► '�rr�+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES stated that the competitors use a different type of technology that facilitates them using cabinets in the desert. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that Singular is installing a tower on City property. Their equipment building is bermed into the ground. Why can they do that without any problem with grounding? Mr. Hanrath stated that he is proposing going into an SCE substation. They have done an equipment shelter at 10' in height. At the very least, he can offer that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that SCE doesn't have something under every piece of their property. Mr. Hanrath stated that this is correct. He's done substations with SCE and the biggest thing, even in the most distant corner, is digging. They will not let them bury the equipment shelter. Commissioner Vuksic commented that if there's nothing there, then why would they care. Mr. Hanrath stated that it's because iYs SCE. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the ARC doesn't like the buildings to be above the existing screen walls. Between SCE and the City, there has to be some movement on Verizon's part. Mr. Hanrath stated that he can offer a 10' equipment shelter. There is other existing equipment in the substation thaYs taller than the walls. There is substantial existing landscaping and more landscaping will be planted. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was any landscaping inside the substation. Mr. Hanrath stated that there isn't any landscaping inside. Landscaping is a problem for SCE because branches blow off and short out stations. Commissioner Gregory wondered about material that can be used that doesn't have a branch problem. The Commission inquired about the visibility from the street and golf course. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed location for the shelter is at the southeast corner of the substation property. Everything to the northwest (2-3 acres) is the substation. Commissioner Lopez suggested enhancing the architecture of the equipment building. Diane Hollinger asked if the people in the homes above the fairway looking into the substation are going to be happy seeing a building above the wall. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant agreed that trees will be planted by Verizon as part of the overall project and will be coordinated with staff. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to equipment shelter not exceeding 10 feet in height. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030513.MIN i9 • • °�r �wr►' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WORLD DEVELOPMENT, GARY RICHARD, 44-600 Village Court, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of model home plans. LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, east of Monterey ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request at the applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 03-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ERNEST RAMIREZ, 12188 Central Avenue, #269, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary 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 Mr. Smith stated that the proposed location is on the small pad on the south side of Fred Waring immediately east of Toys R Us, directly opposite the end of Joshua Road. Mr. Smith stated that the plans that were included in the packets are obsolete and the applicant delivered revised elevations on Monday providing for a single-story building. Copies were circulated to the Commission and color elevations were displayed on the wall. The revised proposal complies with the height limit of the ordinance and the tower is approximately 29' in height. There are no issues requiring City Council approval unless it goes through an appeal process. The earlier proposal had the tower element at 39' and that would require additional review. (Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the ARC approved something on this site approximately 12 years ago.) Ernest Ramirez, applicant, stated that he also added a screen wall which is connected to the building with an arched opening. Commissioner Lopez asked if the area in front of the building is for G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R030513.MIN 2� . - '�rwr � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES retention. Mr. Smith stated that they can probably get away without retention because they're immediately adjacent to the storm channel. Mr. Ramirez commented that he's purchasing an existing pad and building on half of it. Commissioner Lopez asked if the wall can be pulled back a little bit from the concrete so that people won't drive into it and the curb could act like a buffer. Mr. Ramirez stated that they have 32' in that area, which should be plenty of room. Commissioner Gregory stated that some people who have poor driving skills may have a problem with the wall. Mr. Ramirez stated that his employees will pull the cars out into this area. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he is having problems with the proportions of the building. The site is ideal for a one-story building. He realizes that the original proposal was for a two-story building, but it still looks like it's two story. The building itself is small and yet it has a 30' height. Mr. Ramirez stated that the tower is 30' in height, but the bulk of the building is 20' in height. The door height is 12' and he needs 2' on the inside for the roll-up door, 3' for the trusses and 30" parapet. About as low as he can get the roof height is 19'6". Commissioner Gregory asked if the tower could be used to disguise any roof-mounted equipment. Mr. Ramirez stated that this is exactly what it's for. There is no visible roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the applicant is screening anything on the roof. Mr. Ramirez stated that he isn't screening anything on the roof. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it sounds like the roof height can be lowered 2'-3'. Mr. Ramirez commented that he could bring the height down a couple of feet. The tower will be lowered proportionately. Commissioner Hanson suggested considering the arched area above the window for signage. Commissioner Lopez asked about parking. There's one parking space near the landscaped area that looks like they're trying to squeeze in more parking. Mr. Ramirez stated that there were two existing parking spaces in this area and he has removed one of them. Commissioner Lopez stated that there's a really tight spot on the corner. Mr. Ramirez stated that he can remove that parking spot as well. Commissioner Hanson asked if he could make it a planter. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the applicant doesn't need all the parking, a planter would work in this area. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the exterior finish of the building. Mr. Ramirez stated that it will be La Habra stucco with fry metal reveals to act as dividers for the stucco to prevent spider cracking. Mr. Drell G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030513.MIN 21 • • � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 MINUTES stated that it's hard to get rich colors using La Habra stucco. He would have to paint it to get a deeper color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they can mix colors into the color coat. Mr. Ramirez commented that when you paint stucco it kills the breathing opportunity of the stucco and it creates problems. It has been recommended not to paint stucco, however, they give very few choices in terms of the color. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has a concern about the flatness of the facade. Mr. Ramirez stated that the tower pops out about 1'. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's concerned that the renderings aren't really what the building will look like. The renderings give the illusion that there are some changes in plane. Mr. Ramirez stated that the use of cotor should give it some depth. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the north elevation has a site wall drawn but it doesn't show the roll-up doors. You will see that. Mr. Ramirez asked if he should blend in the last two feet to match the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we will be able to see that in reality so we're going to look at it. Don't ignore that wall. Mr. Ramirez stated that the only thing that they didn't finalize was whether to make the last two feet glass so that it looks like a store front when it's closed. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to modify plans by (1) reducing building height by 2'-3', (2) creating depth on facade to add shadow lines, and (3) eliminate parking space to add planter area. Motion carried 6-0-0-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030513.MIN 22