Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-22 , � `�' "`'�✓` ����� CITY OF PALM DESERT '� _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . � MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:36 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 3 1 Kristi Hanson X 3 1 Chris Van Vliet X 3 1 John Vuksic X 4 Ray Lopez X 4 Karen Oppenheim X 4 Karel Lambell X 4 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development 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: FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of February 8, 2005. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 , , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-175 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): CARL WEHRLI, BAXLEY PROPERTIES, 73-712 Alessandro Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised sign program for Fred Waring professional building. LOCATION: 44-100 Monterey Avenue ZONE: OP Mr. Urbina addressed the applicant, Kim Sanson representative for Sign-A-Rama, and commented that the commission likes the proposed sign program in general, but they are concerned that once a new tenant comes in, will there be new holes drilled into the building or are the letters glued on? Mr. Sanson stated that the letters will be glued on. There will be some glue that will have to be removed and the paint will be touched up. Commissioner Hanson stated that she finds that the paint never touches up the same because when the paint has been on a building for a while and it fades, you can always tell when it's been touched up. Is there a way to create a panel that could be removed with the letters attached to the panel that would create a framework so you don't have that problem? Mr. Sanson suggested mounting the letters to a piece of wood and screw #hat into the wall. Heather Sharpe, representative from Collier-Seeley, was present and stated that the tenants that will be getting the signage are on long-term leases (three years and over) so there won't be that much change. Most of them have been there for seven or eight years already. Mr. Urbina asked the commission if they still want individual channel letters. Mr. Sanson stated that they're actually foam letters, 2" thick. The wood framework could be painted to match the stucco. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would rather have the letters on the stucco and deal with the occasional sign change than have these framed signs. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 2 , i�° "�►� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-168 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AD ART, WARNER LEMENAGER, 2321 Rosecrans Avenue #1250, EI Segundo, CA 90245 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVA� SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Sotheby's International Realty. LOCATION: 73-470 EI Paseo, Suite 6-7 ZONE: C-1 Warner LeManager, applicant, was present to answer questions from the commission. Mr. Urbina commented that the commission would like to discuss the signage and awnings. Commissioner Hanson stated that everything that was submitted was very tastefully done and looks really great, but there seems like there couldn't possibly be anymore ways to get the name Sotheby's on any other surfaces and felt like it was overkill. Mr. Urbina stated that Prest-Vuksic Architects reviewed and approved the proposed signage. Commissioner Gregory stated that maybe having the signage on the building, awnings and door may be a little too much. If we could reduce the amount of signage so that it doesn't appear to look like a billboard, it would be a lot nicer. The signage is attractive, but there's too much of it. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's too much. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that having signage on the door and awning is redundant. You could have one of the other. Mr. LeManager stated that they could eliminate the signage on the awnings along San Pablo. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to removing signage on two awnings on San Pablo. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROD GRINBERG / TRANSWEST HOUSING, INC., 47-120 Dune Palms Road, Suite C, La Quinta, CA 92253 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR050222.MIN 3 , . �', "�° ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 16- lot subdivision. LOCATION: Kokopelli Circle East; east side of Shepard Lane ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Urbina stated that the ARC previously had eight items that they wanted shown on the final working drawings. The item that the ARC wants to discuss was their request to have the windows on the side elevations recessed. The construction drawings were reviewed and there appears to be a 2" x 6" pop-out stucco foam detail being used as window trim. The commission doesn't think that thaYs what they meant by recessed windows. Chip Milton, architect, commented that he had spoken to someone at the City for clarification of the conditions and was told that he could put 2" trim around the windows to show the recess. Architecturally, it would look almost identical. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Milton if they could keep the 2 x 4 walls that they have and put in a 2 x 3 nailer where the nail-on windows go so that they're slightly recessed rather than having trim around the windows. Mr. Milton stated that they might run into an insulation problem with doing that but it might be okay. They may have a sheer panel coming up to the side of the window, but I'm not sure. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they allow for a nailer of some kind to trim it out. Mr. Milton stated that they do, but has to be cautious because it could be that we're directly up to the edge of the window. We could probably move it over for the fin of the nailer. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that we proceed with this plan and if there's a problem with the window, Mr. Milton will let staff know. The foam trim will be removed from the side elevations. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to removing foam trim from windows on side elevations and adding 2 x 3 nailers to recess windows. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 4 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC KLEINER, 2171 India Street, # Q, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 2,100 square foot office building and an 11,500 square foot warehouse. Intertile, Natural Stone SurFaces. LOCATION: 74-842 42nd Avenue ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 05-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANDREA VARELA, 74-185 Rutledge Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' high block wall, 15'3" from the curb at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-185 Rutledge Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that, according to the applicant, the purpose of the block wall is to create privacy for a front courtyard and to mitigate noise impact from Rutledge Way and Palm Desert Middle School, which is directly across the street. The City Council is going to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to increase the distances for all walls in the front yards of single-family residences. In the interim, the Council wants all walls that are proposed in front yard areas to come to the ARC for review and approval. Commissioner Hanson asked about the rule for a 6' wall. Mr. Urbina stated that it would have to be 15' minimum from the curb. This proposal complies with the code, but G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 5 . , �" � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES because the Council is considering increasing that to 20', they want these proposals to come to the ARC for approval. The applicant is proposing two pilaster columns at the ends. There are no offsets in the walL Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would much rather see some sort of offset than pilasters. I'm not that passionate about making them do anything else to the wall since they're beyond the 15' setback. Commissioner Gregory stated that the 6' height of the wall is intimidating. If it were 5' in height, it would be less "in your face". If the wall had a little movement to it and it weren't quite "the wall of China", I think that it would be okay. Will this be called up by the City Council? Mr. Urbina stated that it could possibly be called up. Commissioner Lopez commented that the wall is going to be right up to the driveway and suggested that it be offset a little bit to give it some relief with some landscaping in front of it, which is very important. This looks very open so I'm more inclined to having offsets. Mr. Urbina stated that there are comments by the Landscape Manager thaf will be given to the applicant. Andrea Varela, applicant, was present and stated that they're going to add a door with pilasters on the sides and landscape lighting so that the wall looks nice from the street. Commissioner Hanson suggested having the wall tie back into the overhang at the entry to the house and put the gate there so now you'll see the wall, the entry gate and then the garage door. It will look like you have more house than you do wall. Ms. Varela stated that this is a good suggestion. She's concerned about her children opening the door and going out towards the street so she does like the idea of having the gate where the walkway starts for added security. Commissioner Hanson stated that if you have the gate where iYs located in the proposed plans, you'll won't be able to see it as well than if you put it in the entry area of the home. The gate wouldn't be visible in the proposed location and you would have less ability to see whether it was open or not. Leave the wall at the 15' setback but wrap it back into the column and put the gate so that it's facing the street. The gate would be set back so that it's even with the garage. Mr. Urbina stated that the gate is a decorative element and would add visual appeal from the street. Ms. Varela stated that she would prefer a 6' high wall, rather than lower it to 5'. Mr. Urbina stated that under the new ordinance, a 5' wall would have to be setback 15' from curb face. Commissioner Lambell stated that it could be lowered G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR050222.MIN 6 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES to 5' at 15' from the curb and it would meet the current ordinance as well as the proposed amendment with the articulated entry. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that that seems like the smart way to go. Commissioner Lambell stated that the applicant wouldn't have to risk going to Council if they lowered it to 5' to be in compliance with the proposed changes to the ordinance. Commissioner Gregory stated that he would not approve the wall at 6' in height. Mr. Varela stated that he'd be willing to go with the suggestions by the commission but was concerned about the privacy of his daughters whose windows are in the front of his house. One foot probably won't make that much difference and it'll probably look nicer. Commissioner Lopez commented that he's going to vote "no" because he feels that the applicant should be allowed to have a 6' high wall. Mr. Varela asked if they could add an arch over the door. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission would have to see plans for this element before it could be approved. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) lowering wall height to 5', (2) add articulation to wall, (3) move gate so that it faces the street and is set back at a distance even with the front wall of the garage, and (4) incorporate comments by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-1- 0-1 with Commissioner Lopez opposed and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP05-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WISE MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION, 53-685 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to construct a parking lot for vehicle parking, refueling, and wash facility. Cardiff Limousine & Transportation LOCATION: 75-255 Sheryl Avenue ZONE: SI G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN � � ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES George Merance was present to answer questions from the commission. Commissioner Lambell asked to see an elevation of the overhead fueling station. Mr. Merance distributed photos of other fueling stations in the valley for the commission to review. Mr. Urbina asked about the height of the fuel tank. Mr. Merance stated that the tank is approximately 8' in diameter with legs underneath it. Mr. Urbina asked again about the height of the tank from the ground level. Mr. Merance stated that it will be 10' in height and it will be located inside the service yard about two-thirds of the way back onto the property. Mr. Merance stated that the Planning Department has asked them to build an 8' high wall along the front of the property. Ed Wise, Wise Maintenance and Construction, was present and stated that there will be an 8' high decorative block wall with a 24' gate in the front. Mr. Urbina asked if their front property fine is 10' back from the curb. Mr. Wise stated that that is correct. Mr. Urbina stated that the commissioners should consider whether or not they would want an 8' high wall located 10' from the curb. Gary Cardiff, owner, was present and stated that he thought that it was deeper than that because it's the same as the T.V. station's wall which is about 15' from the curb. It's more than 10'. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it scales at 12' from the curb. Commissioner Lambell asked about the gate details. Mr. Cardiff stated that at night it's closed and during the day it's open. Each vehicle will have a transponder that will open the gate. I had a gentleman from the Planning Department visit the site last week and he didn't want a solid gate. He wanted a gate that you can see through, which is what we have on our other property. Eric Brown, G & M Construction, was present and stated that the overhead fueling line will consist of a 2" steel pipe that'll be in a c-channel that will be 8" wide and 14' high so that the busses can be fueled. Commissioner Lambell stated that she's having a real problem with this. Mr. Brown stated that it will be located at the back end of an industrial area on the back half of the property. If you're on the street looking over an 8' high wall, I would have to think that you're going to have a hard time seeing it. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was wondering if the wall even has to be that high. Mr. Cardiff stated that the busses are 13' tall. All the doors in their garages are 14' high. An explanation was given regarding the procedure for fueling the busses. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we'll probably never see the tank because it'll be behind the busses. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R050222.MIN g � ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked if the setback is going to be okay with the City Council and their recent interest in walls. Mr. Cardiff stated that he had originally proposed a 6' high walt, but would be happy with a 10' high wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they would be opposed to losing the spots closest to the wall. Mr. Cardiff stated that he would like everything he could get, parking-wise. This plan will pull most of the employee parking off the street. Commissioner Vuksic suggested moving the wall back to allow for a more robust landscape plan on both sides with planter pockets behind the wall. Mr. Cardiff stated that he could do that, but I went up the street to the newest construction in the area at the T.V. station and I worked off what they did with their wall. We were going to put in a 6' high wall and then when it came to the Planning Department I was told to make it 8' high. The goal is to maximize the lot for parking. I would prefer to keep every parking spot that I can but I'll work with you and whatever you need. Commissioner Gregory commented that he could probably give up one spot and showed Mr. Cardiff on the plans how it could be done. Mr. Urbina stated that the current ordinance for walls in the Service Industrial area says that "a masonry wall at a minimum height between 5' and 7' shall be provided along all property lines, except those adjacent to public rights of way in which case a setback of 20' will be maintained". This appears to say that the wall would have to be 20' back from the front property line. Mr. Cardiff asked how long this ordinance has been in effect. Mr. Urbina stated that it's been in effect since 1975. Commissioner Vuksic asked about what happens when the wall gets to the landscaping business that's next door. Mr. Cardiff stated that there's a 5'6" wall next door. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he could turn the 8' wall and step it down so that iYs not an 8' high wall coming up to a 5' high wall on the corner? Mr. Cardiff agreed to do this. ' Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval of wall, subject to (1) the 8' high front wall being 20' minimum from the curb, (2) northwest corner wall will turn and step down over a distance of 15' to transition from one wall height to another, (3) applicant to submit plans showing step detail for wall, and (4) subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. The building plans have been continued to a date unknown. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050222.MIN 9 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 04-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEXTEL CALIFORNIA by TETRA- TECH INC., RAMON R. SALAZAR, 310 Commerce Avenue, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 75' high wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment shelter. LOCATION: Country Club Drive, Indian Ridge maintenance yard ZONE: PR-5 Ramon Salazar, Tetra-Tech representative, was present. Mr. Urbina showed the commission a photo simulation of what the monopalm would look like from Country Club Drive. The applicant is also proposing to plant three live date palms at height of 40'-45'. I am transmitting a copy of these plans to Southern California Edison for comment to find out what the minimum distance that they would want the live palms fronds to be from the overhead power lines. There is a 19' distance from curb face on Country Club to the 6' high perimeter wall at Indian Ridge. There may be enough room to accommodate live palms, depending on what Edison says. Mr. Salazar stated that the distance is 50'. Mr. Urbina stated that we usually want live palm trees planted in the vicinity of the monopalm to camouflage it. The problem with planting the palm trees on the south side of the wall is that there's only a 30" wide planter there, unless the maintenance facility would allow you to create 6' x 8' planters. Mr. Salazar stated that they use this area as a driveway and there's a lot of vehicular traffic. Commissioner Lopez stated that there's also a sidewalk on the perimeter. Commissioner Gregory asked how the commission feels about this proposal in general. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the monopalm. Mr. Salazar stated that it's 75' in height. Mr. Urbina stated that the reason why it's so high is because staff required them to revise their first submittal so that the antennae are located on the inside the palm trunk. In order for them to have the same number of antennae, they had to make the monopalm higher. It would've been 65' high. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it was 50' from the power lines G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 1� � ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES and the power lines are 15'-20' from the street. Mr. Salazar stated that this is correct. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the photograph doesn't look like the site plan at all. Commissioner Gregory commented that the problem that the commission is having is the difficulty in having the real palms work with the monopalm because of the constraint forced by the parkway. Commissioner Lopez commented that there aren't any palm trees in this area and stated that the Indian Wells golf course did a tree-type of site and suggested that the applicant look into a pine tree. Mr. Salazar stated that they tried that idea. Mr. Urbina commented that the City Council said that they didn't want anymore artificial pine trees. They received a lot of complaints from homeowners after the first mono-pine went up at Indian Ridge Country Club. Mr. Urbina stated that the live palms in the proposed plan would be a minimum distance of 40' away from the artificial monopalm and he asked the commission if they thought that that would be sufficient to camouflage the view from Country Club. Commissioner Hanson stated that she didn't feel that they would camouflage anything. Mr. Urbina asked the commission if they would like to direct the applicant to explore accommodating 2-3 live palm trees closer to the artificial palm trees inside the maintenance yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was some reason why that can't happen. Mr. Salazar stated that they use that facility for their heavy equipment for the golf course. There's also a concern with easements that run underneath the property. Commissioner Vuksic stated that easements tend to be along the street. Mr. Salazar stated that there are underground utilities that service the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that just by looking at the building and the utilities along the street, I think that it's doubtful that there's an easement there. Mr. Salazar stated that he would look into it. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the things that's wrong to the photo simulation is that they've indicated that the palm trees in the foreground are 40' and 45', which would make them seem taller than the one thaYs behind it. The photo simulation is not right. You're trying to sell us a product that right now, we don't like. Mr. Salazar asked how he could fix this. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would suggest that they produce an accurate photo simulation. Mr. Urbina stated that there's a planter area in the parking lot and asked if this might be an appropriate place for live date palms. Commissioner Lambell asked about putting one outside the wall area. Commissioner Hanson commented that the challenge is making it look like it was landscaped that way to begin with and not that we're trying to camouflage a big, fake palm tree. Mr. Urbina asked the commission if they felt that there should be three live palm trees. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt that there should be more than that, but not planted all in a row. The applicant should consult a landscape architect G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 1 1 � ' � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES and ask them how they would incorporate live palms into their landscape scheme to make it work. Commissioner. Hanson commented that the commission likes having the antennae incorporated into the trunk of the monopalm and thanked the applicant for doing that. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to consult with the Landscape Manager to find other locations for live palms to screen monopalm from different angles. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CMC WHITECAP, THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a 31,679 square foot office/industrial building. LOCATION: 73-600 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Urbina stated that this is a proposed concrete tilt-up industrial building on the north side of Dinah Shore Drive, right across from Leilani Way. The commission previously approved fourteen light industrial buildings in the area as well as the Bedrosian Tile and Glass Block Products buildings. Staff feels that a little bit more needs to be done to the elevation facing Dinah Shore Drive to enhance the east half of the architecture there. Consideration should also be given to some enhancements along portions of the easterly elevation. Traffic moving westbound along Dinah Shore Drive would see this elevation. The plans do show some offset in the building height, but it appears to be only 1'-18" and given the size of the building it may not be enough height variation. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant to describe what is going on in the building and why some of the elements were done the way they were. Don Cordova, representative from Ware Malcomb Architects, was present and stated that the user is going to be a contractor supply business. The front side of the building will be dedicated to office and the back will be dedicated to strictly racking of supplies, hardware and G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR050222.MIN 12 , • �r�r' `�rr�'. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES also outdoor storage. The site plan shows awnings and an 8' high fence setback 100' from the street. We tried to pick up some of the elements from the Bedrosian Tile building to the north. They tried to provide some relief on the east elevation �y doing some overlapping panels coming from the end of the south elevation. He asked if the commission was looking for more palm trees. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant should consider the view corridors where you can see through and beyond the project. Even though this is industrial, in Palm Desert we like very nice industrial buildings. I understand that this needs to be very utilitarian, but it lacks a lot of interest and you're going to see aspects of it as you drive up and down Dinah Shore. Keep in mind that you do get view corridors through it so the whole building should look great even though it's industrial. Commissioner Lambell commented that there's a lack of architecture on the north and the east elevations. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council did require Bedrosian Tile to enhance the north elevation. Commissioner Lopez asked the applicant if they were going to screen the A/C units properly and asked about the parapet height. Mr. Cordova stated that the parapet is 44" in height and it will screen the roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Lopez asked about the location of the roof access. Mr. Cordova stated that it's located within the building. Commissioner Lopez stated that signage locations should be identified. Mr. Cordova stated that they would like to come back at a future date with the signage details. Commissioner Hanson asked about roof drainage. Mr. Cordova stated that it's going to be towards the back. They have worked out whether the roof drains will be internal or external, but thought that it would probably be internal. Commissioner Hanson highly recommended that they are internal. Mr. Cordova asked if they could have internal roof drains with an overflow. Commissioner Hanson stated that that would be fine. For everyday drainage, it has to be located inside. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans showing north, south and east elevations with additional articulation. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�AR050222.MIN 13 , • ;�►' ',�;�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-36 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): THOMAS SUN, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised architecture of warehouse/office/showroom building. Sierra Landscape LOCATION: 73-771 Dinah Shore; southwest corner of Dinah Shore and Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that the commission reviewed the ptans two weeks ago. Comments from the Landscape Manager's office were given to the commission to review. The plan has been revised significantly. They've taken about five feet out of the building and also the overhead doors have been removed from the west elevation. The projections have increased for the shade devices. Thomas Sun, representative from Ware Malcomb Architects, was present and stated that they've lowered the height of the office/warehouse portion from 35' to 30'. The roof-mounted equipment has been moved to the middle portion and will be adequately screened behind a 5' parapet. We've also introduced some relief to the elevations by pulling panels out 2' so it doesn't look too flat and to give it more shadow. We've introduced shading devices, per the suggestion by the commission. On the south and west elevations, the bottom row of windows are spandrel glass. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he likes the shade elements on the windows, but there are a few walls where it looks like they didn't get to it. Mr. Sun stated that they basically just addressed the west and south elevations. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the Dinah Shore elevation, it looks pretty flat and doesn't have any shade elements. Mr. Sun stated that they recessed the windows 4". Commissioner Vuksic stated that these are huge expanses of glass and asked if they could create some depth there with some sort of shade structure above. Mr. Sun stated that the owner would like to put signage on top so that might be a conflict with the signage. Commissioner Vuksic suggested firring out the middle section of the north elevation 18" from the glass. The middle row on the left side of the Spyder Circle elevation is very flat. You need to do something there. Mr. Sun stated that they could do something there as well as the north elevation. Commissioner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 14 .. `�,r "°�rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 MINUTES Vuksic commented that the parking lot side is very visible from the street is very flat (south elevation). There's a tall, large window and a door in a tilt-up panel that's right on the street with a parking lot in front of it. Mr. Sun stated that he can re-work this elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to incorporate certain things into the architecture so that there isn't just a door stuck in a big wall. Don Cordova, representative from Ware Malcomb, was present and stated that he could shade the windows a little more and revise the plans to show more shadow and incorporate some other elements into the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof drains should be located internally. The parapets should be returned 14' so that they don't look like a facade. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) fir out middle section of north elevation 18" from glass, (2) incorporate elements into arch, (3) add depth to elevations, (4) use internal roof drains, and (5) return parapet screens 14'. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR050222.MIN 15