Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-24 S ��--�T---� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 17 2 Kristi Hanson X 17 2 Chris Van Vliet X 17 2 John Vuksic X 19 Ray Lopez X 16 3 Karen Oppenheim X 19 Karel Lambell X 18 1 Also Present Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet noted changes to the minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the October 10, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *400 MINUTES October 24, 2006 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: RV 06-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DUTCH & RUTH SNIJDERS, 43- 175 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Requesting approval to allow the parking of a recreational vehicle/motor-home in the street side yard of an existing single family home. LOCATION: 43-175 Delaware Place ZONE: RE 40000 Mr. Stendell presented photos showing the motorhome that would be located on the side of the applicant's house, which is on the corner. The applicant indicated that they would be planting Indian Laurel around the perimeter to create a hedge to cover the motorhome. Commissioner Van Wet asked what the rule was regarding visibility in the intersection. Mr. Stendell indicated it was 40 feet diagonally both ways and it appeared that it met that requirement. Commissioner Vuksic stated that his initial impression was that the hedge would look awfully imposing on the street and only four (4) feet from the sidewalk. Mr. & Mrs. Snijders, the applicants indicated that there was an existing driveway with a concrete pad and plenty of room for the motorhome. There is no landscaping at this time, but they would be continuing a hedge that already exists from the property next door that would go to the front of the house. It would be the same distance from the sidewalk with a little break for the driveway. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how tall the motorhome was. The applicant indicated that it was 11 feet tall with the equipment on top. Commissioner Gregory indicated that there was a slope up from the street to that pad and discussed the height of the grade. The pad was about 30 inches above the curb and since the vehicle was 11 G°�Planning'•..lanine.ludy\NJord Res\ARC Minutes\ARD61024nin.DOC Page 2 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION rr✓ MINUTES October 24, 2006 feet tall it would actually be 13'/2 feet tall. The applicant indicated that the hedge would be three (3) feet higher than the motorhome. Mr. Osmoth Lane, neighbor stated that the motorhome was too big and should be in a RV park and felt that it would decrease the value of the neighborhood to have it parked there. The applicant asked the neighbor if he had a chance to look at the photos that were submitted to see how they would be covering the motorhome. Mr. Lane indicated that he had. The applicant indicated that there are four (4) motorhomes parked in their neighborhood and they checked each one to see how they were screened. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that it was impossible to screen it adequately in that location and even though they would be attempting to cover it up with a landscaping, it was not normal landscaping. It would be obvious that they were trying to hide something. He stated that he didn't know how it could fit on that corner. Mr. Smith indicated that regardless which direction the Commission would take, the party who doesn't agree has the ability to appeal this action to the Council. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there is a building setback and the intent of the setback is for the building mass to be a reasonable distance back from the street. There is probably a 15-foot side yard setback and what will essentially happen here is something that is as massive as a building four (4) feet from the property line instead of 15 feet. Mr. Snijders stated that the hedge would go as far forward as the front of the house. Commissioner Lambell stated that she would feel very unsafe with that line of sight. Commissioner Gregory stated he felt the hedge would be far enough back. The Commission reviewed the line of sight requirement and felt that the hedge would not affect the line of sight requirement. Commissioner Hanson stated that she was very sensitive to the fact that people want to park their RVs on their property, but there are times when they could be hidden well enough and not have GAPIanniny\Janine.Judy\Word Files'.ARC Minutes\AR061024.min.DOC Page 3 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION "we MINUTES October 24, 2006 such an impact on the neighborhood. She felt that this would be an impact because it was right on the street and they would be creating a hedge that is essentially a 15-foot wall. Commissioner Hanson made a motion for denial. Commissioner Gregory asked for any other comments. The applicant indicated that they would continue with the plans for the hedge and since they have already cut the concrete and put in the water, they would park one of their cars there instead of the motorhome. The applicant felt that the hedge would be a great improvement to that side of the house. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a requirement with respect to code enforcement with the height of hedges. Mr. Drell stated there wasn't a height requirement at this time. Commissioner Gregory informed the applicants that they would have 15 days to appeal. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to deny request due to: 1) negative impact to the neighborhood; 2) exposing wooden fencing; 3) creating a hedge that is essentially a 15-foot wall 10 feet from the curb; and 4) may create line of sight issues. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: SA 06-146 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument signage at One Quail Place. LOCATION: 72-600 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: PR-22 G\Planr%ing\,lanine Judy\Word Files\ARC M1nutes\AF2061024.m!n DOC Page 4 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 ------------ Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: C 06-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PFF BANK & TRUST, ROBERT RICE, 550 North Indian Hill, Pomona, CA 91767 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of a 3,600 square foot PFF Bank - The Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-975 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Mr. Stendell stated that the plans showed a generator up on the roof with no detail so staff needs the cut sheets and an explanation of what would be happening with the generator. The rest of the plans looked like what the Commission had previously approved. The signage that was included with the construction drawings was adequate and was the same as submitted in the preliminary drawings and will be included in this request. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the roof access. Mr. Stendell stated that the roof access comes through an internal hatch. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval, subject to addressing issues related to roof mounted equipment and continuing to work with Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. CASE NO: SA 06-107 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AKC SERVICES, Inc. 31681 Riverside Dr#B, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of installation of two (2) sets of illuminated signage - "White Cap". G:U'lanr.ing\,Ianine Judy\Word F lesUWC Minutes\AR0F31024.min.DOC Page 5 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION **Me MINUTES October 24, 2006 LOCATION: 73-600 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S-1 Mr. Stendall stated that his initial concern was that the signage was a huge box sign. He received two updated versions, which in his opinion was much better than the original submission. One correction that he pointed out was that they were calling for 800 milli amp fluorescent and the code only allows 430 milli amps. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for the depth of the can. The rep indicated that it was 5 to 6 inches. Commissioner Lambell asked if it met the square footage requirement. Mr. Stendell indicated that it did. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval on the revised version, subject to a maximum of 430 milli amps with an actual depth of six (6) inches on the can. Motion carried 7-0. 5 CASE NO: MISC 06-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON ARCHITECTS, INC., 71-185 Painters Path Ste A, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of a custom residence for David McClain & Merilyn Wong. LOCATION: 172 Tekis Place — Bighorn ZONE: PCD Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. G:\111annin3Wanine Judy\Word FilesVARC Minutes\AROFi1024.min.000 Page 6 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RNEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 6. CASE NO: CUP 03-07 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine, CA 92618. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of co-location on existing Sprint PCS 75-foot tall monopalm. LOCATION: 74-665 '/Z Highway 111 ZONE: P Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, adding Case No. PP 05-19 to the Agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO: PP 05-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BILL MCMASTER, 21542 Surveyor Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval working drawings for two (2) industrial buildings. LOCATION: Spyder Circle; south of Dinah Shore (Gateway Industrial Park) ZONE: S-1 Mr. Smith presented working plans for two (2) industrial buildings at Spyder Circle. He reviewed some of the elevations and they looked the same. He did have concerns with the roof mounted equipment and screening. The property next door to the west of this was about 12 feet above it. There is roof mounted equipment, Gaf'lanningl.lanine Judy\NJord Files1ARC MinutesVM61024,min DOC Page 7 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION N%W MINUTES October 24, 2006 which is fine when viewed from the street, but felt it needed to be screened off from the back because there would be residential in the back that would see it. Commission reviewed the working plans. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they should get the units in there and have them prove that it will work. He stated that the plans indicated that there would also be evaporative coolers up there. Commissioner Hanson indicated that the unit itself is four (4) feet and then there was a 6 or 8-inch curb. Mr. Smith indicated that there was detailing in the mechanical, which was not done to scale. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would have to be made clear to the applicant that when they put evaporative coolers up there they would have to get approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to staff confirming the effectiveness of roof mounted screening. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: MISC 06-35 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TED GROULX, P.O. Box 14083, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of facade improvements. LOCATION: 73-750 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Drell stated that prior to any subsequent tenant improvements (TI) or signage it would be subject to the Phase 2 Fagade Enhancement. When the tenants come in and the applicant applies for a TI, that plan would be accompanied by the final plans for the front. G:\f'la;ninc0'•..Janine JudyMord Files\ARC Minutes\AR061024.min.DOC Page 8 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION **401 MINUTES October 24, 2006 Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he was intending to put in the awnings that are shown on the plans. Mr. Groulx stated that was just for drawing purposes. It would be a plain pallet for the tenants. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to make a few comments for the record on the way it was drawn. He felt that it wasn't thought out and had concerns about quality. He didn't want to go into every single thing that didn't match the floor plan or where it looked like it couldn't be detailed. He felt that what was going to happen was that the floor plan would take precedence because that is where they poured the foundation to and it won't match the elevation. Mr. Drell pointed out that these are preliminary plans and not working drawings. The working drawings will be brought back for review. He asked Commissioner Vuksic to circle the areas of concern and indicated that when the working drawings come in, staff would pay special attention to those areas. Commissioner Vuksic offered to go over the items of concern with the applicant. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant preliminary approval, subject to: 1) correction of detail conflicts in the working drawings; and, 2) subject to Phase 2 Fagade Improvement plans accompanying any tenant improvements or sign approvals. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: PP 06-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS, 2411 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of architecture for World Savings Bank. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 G:\F'lanning�.Janine Judy\NJord Files\ARG Minutes\AR061024.min.DOG Page 9 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. John Sheehan, Architect, presented a rendering for World Savings Bank. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Sheehan if the landscaping depicted on the rendering was what they would be proposing. Mr. Sheehan indicated that it was and there would be deer grass, lantana and some additional palms. Ms. Hollinger, Landscape Manager stated that the landscape plans were reviewed and comments were made and sent back to the applicant. He indicated that the landscape architect they were working with did the landscaping for the Rancho Mirage Library and he is familiar with desert landscaping. Commissioner Hanson stated that the building was big. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it looked worse in the rendering. Commissioner Gregory stated that it could still work if the owner was forced to back off with some of their interior goals relating to height. The biggest concern was the top-heaviness. Mr. Drell stated that the top element dominates and everything else disappears so you don't see the bottom or any of the wings and fins. Commissioner Gregory felt that if they brought the top down, so it would be more in proportion, it would pass. Commissioner Hanson stated that the view you would experience more would be when coming down Hwy 74. Mr. Sheehan stated that by the time you are within eyeshot of the building it turns and flattens out. Commissioner Hanson stated that she loved the building, but it was just too top heavy. Mr. Sheehan then produced another rendering showing the top of the building lowered by three (3) feet. The Commission reviewed the two renderings side by side. Commissioner Hanson felt that in the second rendering the top was now in proportion to the bottom. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it needed more hierarchy because it appeared to be split in the middle. He felt that they could keep that same height, but the bottom eve needed to be higher so that the lower piece would be larger than the upper piece. Commissioner Hanson wondered if the landscaping made it appear to be cut off. G.\F'IanningWanine JudyWVord Files\ARC MinutesVNR061U24.rnm DOC Page 10 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 Mr. Sheehan stated that they were not seeing the first 24 inches of the glazing as a consequence of the height of the deer grass and lantana. Mr. Sheehan asked Commissioner Vuksic if he was suggesting they should adjust the height of the brow. Commissioner Vuksic felt that they had lowered it just enough and it was dramatically better, but if he had seen this rendering first he would have reluctantly made that same comment. Mr. Sheehan stated that on the original drawings submitted, the horizontal brow was at the joint between the metal siding and the storefront. It was the only thing dividing the two materials. In the second submission, as a need to try to anchor and lower the center of gravity, they shifted that down. Mr. Sheehan asked Commissioner Vuksic if he was asking for that to come back up. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked that detail. Mr. Drell asked if they could raise the glass a foot. Mr. Sheehan indicated that it would create sectional issues inside the space. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they couldn't raise the eyebrow and also have the detail, then he would rather raise the eyebrow. He stated that the way it was in the first rendering, the bottom of the eyebrow is the same level as the bottom of the corrugated parapet, which would raise it about two (2) feet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the glass height was. Mr. Sheehan indicated that it was ten feet. The door was eight (8) foot with a 10-foot storefront and it goes up to a skylight. Commissioner Gregory asked what the material was on the face of the building above the sunshade. Mr. Sheehan answered that it was a corrugated metal. The Commission discussed the color for the corrugated metal siding. There were two alternative choices of pre-finished metal. One was a medium bronze color and the other a Terracotta red. Commission preferred the bronze color. It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Gregory to approve the lowered version with the condition that the steel eyebrow be raised about 24 inches so that GAPlanningWanine.JudylWord Files\ARC MinutesV\R061024.min.DOC Page 11 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 the bottom of the eyebrow is in line with the bottom of the corrugated parapet. Motion failed 2-5, with Commissioners Lambell, Hanson, Oppenheim, Lopez and Van Vliet voting Nay. Commissioner Hanson stated that she liked the lowered rendering as shown. Commissioner Van Wet stated that he liked the lowered version as well. He still felt that it was a little top heavy, but he'd rather see the detail. Mr. Drell stated that with the exception of the deer grass there wasn't any landscaping on the west side of the building. He felt that one vertical element would satisfy, to a certain degree, the top- heavy issue and would help to break up the mass. Commissioner Hanson suggested placing art on the corner. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval of revised plans depicted in the rendering with a height of 20 feet. Motion carried 5-2-0-0, with Commissioners Vuksic and Gregory opposing. 3. CASE NO: MISC 06-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAM SPINELLO, 27 La Plaza, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of store remodel for Palms to Pines Shopping Center. LOCATION: 72-855 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that this item had been continued from the last meeting because the architect wasn't present and the Commission had some questions regarding the thickness of the vertical fagade. Commissioner Vuksic stated to the architect that they had some comments about the thickness of the parapets because a couple of them appeared to be very thin and the thickness of the columns holding up the tower elements appeared spindly. G:1PlanninglWanne,Judy\Word Ries\ARC Mmutes\AR051024.min.DOC Page 12 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 Mr. Alan Sanborn, Architect agreed that the parapets should be thicker and asked the Commission for their recommendation on the thickness. Commissioner Vuksic suggested 18 inches on the wall, plus the cap detail and the columns could probably use another foot. Commissioner Hanson suggested that on Backstreet Bistro to do something that would thicken it up as it comes around. Mr. Sandborn stated that he would make the changes and bring them back as working drawings. Commissioner Gregory stated that at the last meeting he mentioned that a little more detailing was needed. Mr. Drell suggested that the stucco finish be hand-troweled with radius corners. Commissioner Hanson requested that the brow above the opening not be a huge bull nose and asked if it could be recessed. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the areas in the tower that appeared to be recessed in the drawings would actually be recessed. Mr. Sandborn stated that those areas would be recessed with a different color. He stated that they would not use the typical bullnose piece and said that part of the problem was trying to design something that would sit on that existing roof without having to tear it apart too much. Mr. Drell stated that a new design for monument signage was submitted for this project. It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to add signage to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Drell felt that this signage had some architectural style to it and was a lot more interesting than the previous design, which was basically a stacked plastic can. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the height of the sign was. Mr. Sanborn indicated that it was 10 feet in height. Commission reviewed the signage proposal and indicated that this sign had a lot of surfaces and was very creative. G:\f'lanniri3\.Janine Judy\NJord Files\ARC Minutes\AR061024.min.DOC Page 13 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to grant approval of remodel and monument signage, subject to: 1) addition of 18 inches to wall depth, plus cap detail; 2) increase width of columns by one foot; 3) stucco finish to be hand-troweled with radius corners; 4) addition of recessed areas in the tower; 5) brow not to be the typical bullnose piece. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO: C 05-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for Parcel 17 at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-380 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Commissioner Vuksic commented to Mr. Carver that he saw elements on the north elevation that he didn't see on the floor plan and stated that the elements need to be there otherwise it probably wouldn't be built properly. According to the plans there were recessed elements in the walls and he saw four (4) niches that were huge and he didn't see anything there. He stated that they needed to have adequate depth on them because they were nice elements. There are colonnades on the west elevation as you come around the corner to the north where it just stops. It's no longer a three-dimensional piece and it just has a thin end to it. He stated that he saw the same thing on the east elevation for a different colonnade and stated that they could close that up if they needed to; and on the south side he suggested closing that up or thicken up the element to finish that detail. Mr. Carver stated that one of the elevations was a way to get around the back. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the parapet on the west elevation looked half as thick in the roof plan than how it appeared on the elevation. The roof plan shows the parapet at one (1) foot thick and the elevation shows it as two (2) feet thick, so it needed to be thickened up to two (2) feet. G\F'IanningJ Janine.Judy\NJcrd Files\ARC Minutes\AR061024,min DOG Page 14 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RE%EW COMMISSION ,%me MINUTES October 24, 2006 --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------- Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, granted preliminary approval, subject to: 1) providing adequate depth of the recessed wall elements; 2) close up colonnades or thicken elements; 3) thicken up parapet on west elevation to two (2) feet. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO: PP 03-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., 6503 Scotts Valley Drive, #D, Scotts Valley, CA 95066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of roof mounted equipment on a two-story building. LOCATION: 41-990 Cook Street ZONE: OP Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant set-up the screen wall mock- up for review as directed by the Commission at the last meeting. They also moved the unit at the northeast corner of the building further to the west, which allows them to push the screen wall along the east side further to the west. Mr. Clint Brown, the Superintendent of Business Park of the Desert, presented some photos of the units that were screened. The unit that was visible from the east side of the property was moved. They used a flat sheet metal material for the screen wall to mimic the surface of the smooth plaster and the screen would go all the way around the perimeter of the building. Two colors samples were used and they felt that the best thing to do would be to match the top border color. From the top view, if they go with the same materials and color, it will mimic the outer perimeter of the existing parapet. Mr. Drell stated that he did not understand why the units had to be at the edge of the building. The units that remained in the center aren't visible, but the ones at the edge are. He asked Mr. Brown to explain why they had to be moved. G.\Planning\.Janine Judy\NJord Piles\ARC Minutes\AR061024.min.DOC Page 15 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 Mr. Brown explained that in order to duct into the suites on the second floor they had to move those units. Mr. Drell stated that they have placed some ducts on the roof in a couple of areas and those ducts aren't visible either. The issue is that if they put ducts on the roofs at two feet they would probably not be seen as badly as having units at six (6) feet. Mr. Brown said to consider that there are currently 22 units and it originally called for 22 7-ton units. Each unit requires a 22- inch supply and return ducts. They did not have the space to get all the ducts in by placing all of them the way they where. They did not have enough height. Mr. Drell asked why they didn't put the ducts on the roof. Mr. Brown stated that efficiency was horrible. Mr. Drell stated that they could have been insulated and there were boxes that would allow for R-38. Mr. Brown stated that they had to do that in the hallway because they couldn't get mainline ducts running in the hallway. Mr. Drell stated that in all the pictures, with the exception of the end units, you don't see any of the ones in the center. In terms of visibility, the only ones with the problems are the ones that they moved. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and asked why they couldn't shift them and doghouse structure them up on the roof to get the ducts over them. Mr. Brown stated that the inside units were shells and would be used for tenant improvements and the Association would be responsible for the outside of the building. They were limited in choice getting it to run down the hallway perpendicular to the seam lines. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they had both supply and return underneath the unit coming down, so why couldn't they shift that unit and dog-house the supply and return to come over since they would only be 24 inches high and could go back into the same hole. Mr. Brown stated they would be visible. On one side there are 30- inch SSIs, eight (8) foot on the side and the subtotals running that way. He indicated that they had removed a 54-inch unit. Mr. Drell stated now they were down to 48 inches and they couldn't see those other units, the only ones that could be seen are the ones that were pushed out to the edge. G\Planning Janine.Judy\Word FilesMC MinutesWR061024.min DOG Page 16 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL R IEW COMMISSION *00 MINUTES October 24, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet didn't understand why they couldn't shift the units over and run the ducts on the roof over and come back in the same hole again. They wouldn't be doing anything different structurally. Mr. Brown stated that they would still have to put up a screen wall. Mr. Drell stated that it would be half the size, so instead of being four (4) to five (5) feet it would be two (2) feet and be located further back from the edge. They would have at least an 18-inch parapet. Mr. Brown stated that in the Hovley picture they wouldn't be gaining that much. You would see maybe two (2) feet of it compared to 18 inches. Mr. Drell stated that you wouldn't see any of those units. Commissioner Hanson pointed out that it's the difference between how much of one unit you would see from another unit. For instance, you would see six (6) inches above that parapet verses 18 inches. Commissioner Van Vliet said that a screen wall might still be required, but it would be shifted in. Mr. Drell stated that from the east side looking west you couldn't see the center units at all. The parapet size varies and in all the pictures that have been presented the only units that are visible are the ones at the ends or the ones that have been pushed out. The problem they were going to run into is when they go to Council to ask for an increase in the height they should have an absolutely positive solution. Mr. Brown stated that when you look inside the building and see all the equipment and view the elevations with which they had to work with, you would get a better enlightenment of how to run the ducting and why the units are being pushed to the edge. Regardless, the screen wall would still be there and they would try to make it look aesthetically nice as possible. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission was trying to help them with a solution because they would be slammed when they go to Council and they know that the applicant was resisting because there was a slew of problems. Mr. Brown stated that he understood, but he thought he was at the meeting because of the issues with the screen wall being acceptable as opposed to what the equipment would be doing inside the building. GARarrincdldanine Judy\'Nord Files\ARC Minutes\AR061024.mIn.UOC. Page 17 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 Commissioner Van Wet stated that what they were asking for wouldn't effect what they were doing inside the building. Mr. Brown clarified what the Commission was asking them to do and that would be to move the units back, build two (2) to four (4) doghouses and move the screen wall back. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested doing a study to see how far they could get them in. Mr. Brown stated that they have looked into that and this is where they wound up and everything else is relative. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that Mr. Brown didn't understand what they were saying and asked him why he kept going back to the same meaningless point. Mr. Brown stated that he understood that they were preparing him for the height issues when this would go to Council. Mr. Drell stated that this board had the same obligation to ask if the only solution would be to raise the building four (4) feet. Mr. Brown stated that in the original drawings the screen wall was shown. Mr. Drell stated that they did not build what the plan shows. By moving that screen wall further to the edge they created a tremendous impact with the line of sight. He asked why couldn't they do what was shown in the drawing. Mr. Brown stated that he could give a hundred different reasons why the units were spread out. Mr. Drell stated that if the ductwork could go through the roofing in the exact same place, it would be better to have 18 inches or two (2) feet on the roof than to have a four (4) foot bump. From the line of sight, a two (2) foot bump almost disappears and probably would not be visible at all while a four (4) foot bump requires a large screen. Mr. Brown explained that the A/C has a bottom funnel flow and wouldn't be able to go out the side. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it could be done if they changed the unit. Commissioner Vuksic asked if a down flow unit could be modified to be a side flow unit. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would probably be hard and they would have to ask the A/C installer. Mr. Brown stated that it would probably raise the unit another four (4) feet. Commissioner Gregory stated that he understood that they were heroically trying to keep the units they have because it would be G:1F'IanninglJanine Judy\V'Jord FilesWA C Mlnutes'v,RDG1024.min.DOC Page 18 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *"01 MINUTES October 24, 2006 frightfully expensive to make the changes. Mr. Brown stated that it would be very expensive to make changes and felt that this had been very well thought out and explained that they had to move the ducts because there was no other way to get the ducting through there. Commissioner Gregory stated that they have hit a brick wall and this wasn't working. The applicant had given them the explanation of why the units were there, however it won't work and now there was a problem. He stated that they might have to get other units to make it work. Pushing the units back in the way the plan originally indicated was a way that might work and the Commission could possibly support that. He said that it might still be a little high, but felt that it would only be a few inches, and at least the screen wall would be moved back away from the edge so you wouldn't see it nearly as much. Right now two (2) feet is visible so if it was moved you might only see an inch or so. Mr. Drell asked if there were other views from the building where you could see the center units other than from the north and south. Mr. Brown stated that you could probably see them from Cook Street and from the north. Commissioner Lambell stated from Hovley you could see the east side. George Baker, Developer/Owner stated that he understood that it matches everything around the other buildings that have the parapets; it matches aesthetically. Commissioner Lambell stated that if they had come in with that at the very beginning it would have been much easier. Mr. Baker stated that he wished his architect had done that. He inherited the architect along with the plans. Commissioner Lambell stated that what they have now is a two fold problem; one is looking at this equipment which we adamantly jump through hoops to not have to look at, and the second problem is they were way over the height limit; which was a big issue specifically with this building. The big issue now is the height problem not how it can be screened. You need to investigate some alternative air conditioning. Mr. Baker stated that they would review the screen wall and the height on the approved set of plans and work from that envelope. G:\Planning'\..lanine JudyWVord Files\ARC Minutes4AR061024.min DOC Page 19 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2006 Mr. Baker stated that there was nothing on his conditions that said that the building had to be 25 feet. Commissioner Gregory asked if that was an error on the part of the plan checker with the City. Mr. Baker stated that Conditions of Approval is what governs a project and when he purchased the property from Gill Desert Properties there was nothing in the conditions that indicated that the building height was 25 feet. Mr. Drell stated that the maximum height in the OP zone is 25 feet and it doesn't have to be conditioned. Mr. Baker stated that they could screw him on that, but he has been doing this for about 24 years and he usually would govern things off of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Drell stated that you are governed by City Ordinances and the fundamental height limit in that zone is 25 feet. He told Mr. Baker that he couldn't fundamentally change sensitive items of architecture without coming to the City, and they were not the only ones doing that. The problem is that there is a gap between the dry wall inspection and the final inspection and that is when all the mechanical equipment gets added and people have been quite cavalier in improvising when they put in the mechanical equipment. Mr. Baker stated that he didn't know the equipment got moved. So what they need to do is move everything back within that screen wall, per the approved plans and bring it back here after that has been completed and bring the screen wall where it should be. Mr. Drell stated that after moving everything they might find that they only have to add about six (6) inches to the main fascia and it might work. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the screen wall was shown on the working drawings but not on the preliminary plans. Mr. Drell stated that they did not. Technically it is the applicant's obligation to produce to us working drawings that are consistent with the preliminaries and just because the plan checker didn't catch it, doesn't change an entitlement or create an amendment to City Ordinance. He stated that even a four (4) foot screen wall would have been a problem. He felt that they should first do the relocation and then take a look at it. It might require little screening or none at all, except on the ends. The ideal situation would be not to have a screen wall on the east side to impact Mr. Pratt's view. Mr. Baker indicated that they would try to pull them away from Mr. Pratt's view as best as they could. G\Planning\.Janine.JudylWord Files'ARC Minutes\AR061024.rnin DOC Page 20 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REEW COMMISSION V40r MINUTES October 24, 2006 Commissioner Lambell stated that they would have to pull them back, but they would still have to stay below the 25 feet or they have to go to Council. Mr. Drell stated that we would work it one step at a time. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they would not be able to stay below 25 feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they go to Council with this whole history and with a picture that shows that the units are not visible, they could try to pull it off. Mr. Patrick Pratt stated that the screen wall that they put up was not acceptable to him. It wasn't the look that was approved with the building. From his line of sight the screen wall was not small and was probably at least three (3) to four (4) feet tall. The City approved the building at 25 feet and it should have been built to those standards. He came to the Planning Department six (6) months ago when they first put the units up on the roof and told the Staff that he could see that the units were not going to be below the roofline. Staff explained to him that there was low profile units and other types of units they could use and if they have to make them put those units in they would so they would be below the line. Now it's a little late to be saying that they have this problem and they need the additional height. Moving it back might take care of most of the problem. The solution of a parapet wall all the way along the boundary is not something he would prefer. There are probably three (3) or four (4) units that he is actually impacted by, so it would be better for him to have the units screened individually than to put a parapet wall 150 to 160 feet along the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that Mr. Pratt was indicating a willingness to make this work. It was nice to see that everyone was in concurrence. Mr. Pratt indicated that he is willing to work with them, but he emphatically told them that what is there now is unacceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue that matter to allow the applicant to relocate air conditioning units away from the edge and allow a representative from the Commission to site check. Motion carried 7-0. G 1('lanning',lanirie.ludylIJVord Files\ARC KnutMAR061024.rnin.DOC Page 21 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RENEW COMMISSION *4W MINUTES October 24, 2006 C. Miscellaneous Items None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. S EVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:\{'lenning\,Janine,)udy\Word Files`ARC MinutesVaR061024.rnin DOC Page 22 of 22