Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-14 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES April 14, 2009 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 6 1 Chris Van Vliet X 6 1 John Vuksic X 7 Karel Lambell X 7 Pam Touschner X 6 1 Allan Levin X 3 Vacancy Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 24, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the March 24, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-2-0, with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet abstaining. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-87 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to co- locate six panel antennas to existing monopalm. LOCATION: 77-890 Country Club Drive ZONE: S.I. Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this was continued from the last meeting. This request is for the installation of six panel antennas to an existing Sprint monopalm located in the service industrial area. At the last meeting it was recommended that additional palm fronds be added to the existing monopalm. There were questions regarding the relocation of a live palm tree, the locations of new live palms, and the location of the equipment and pushing it back towards the curb. Ms. Veronica Arvizu, representative stated that the one existing palm tree would remain but would be relocated to the north side of the south wall in the corner. The landscape architect is in the process of producing landscape plans for this location which will be submitted to staff at a later date. The applicant agreed that the palm fronds need some maintenance and she mentioned that this could be a condition of approval. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist expressed her concern about moving a tree of this size because there is no guarantee like you would have with a new palm tree. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they give the relocation a try before they replace it with a new one. Ms. Arvizu stated that they would replace the tree with a new 40-foot tree if the relocation doesn't work out. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the standards where for refurbishing the palm fronds. Mr. Bagato said that the representative could submit a new photo rendering of the enhancements to the existing monopalm for staff's review and approval. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Mlnutes\2009V1R090414min.d0C Page 2 of 18 Lrr %MW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval subject to: 1) relocating the existing tree to a suitable location - generally north of the south wall; 2) plant a new tree if relocated tree should die; 3) submit a photo rendering of the enhancements of new palm fronds to existing monopalm and submit for staff's review and approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-146 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to co- locate six panel antennas to existing monopine. LOCATION: 76-055 Country Club Drive ZONE: S.I. Mr. Swartz presented the staff report and summarized the project. This is a request to install six panel antennas to an existing Sprint monopine wireless telecommunications tower, and to extend the pole by ten feet for a total height of 73 feet to accommodate the antennas, with four outdoor equipment cabinets that will be placed within a wrought iron fence located at 76-055 Country Club Drive. The applicant, Royal Street Communications is requesting to co-locate to the existing monopine and install six panel antennas and extend the monopine ten feet to a total height of 73 feet. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 Commercial Communication Tower Regulations states the height for wireless towers is 75 feet. The applicant will install four outdoor equipment cabinets that will be screened by an eight-foot wrought iron fence. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR090414min.doc Page 3 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 3. CASE NO: MISC 09-145 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to co- locate six panel antennas to existing monopalm. LOCATION: 73-750 Country Club Drive ZONE: S.I. Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this is another request to install six panel antennas to an existing monopalm wireless telecommunications tower. They are also proposing an extension to the chain link fence around the new equipment shelter. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval subject to extending chain link fence. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Touschner abstaining. 4. CASE NO: CUP 07-17, PP 07-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GREGG T. WANKE, 220 Concourse Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall and monument signage: Segovia Senior Living, L.L.C. LOCATION: 39-905 Via Scena ZONE: PR-7 Ms. Schrader stated that this was approved some time ago and is currently under construction. The applicant is now requesting approval of their business identification monument signage. There are three proposed signs. The sign on the corner of Monterey and Country Club protrudes from the perimeter walls and would be stucco and capped to match the classic Spanish revival style. The monument sign would be surrounded by raised planters of varying heights. The sign background would be tile and letters would be raised metal and would be up-lit from the ground. The sign on the G1PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR0W414min.doc Page 4 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 east corner of Country Club would be the same in construction and materials as the west facing monument. The sign at the entry gate on Via Scena would be a six-foot free standing sign using the same materials as above. The proposed monument signs conform to all zoning regulations. The larger wall signs are placed architecturally in an appropriate conformity and proportion to the project's overall appearance and scope. The planter walls and proposed plant materials have yet to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Specialist. Segovia was approved to construct an eight-foot tall perimeter wall to screen the project residents from the busy traffic along Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Business identification monuments are proposed on the site's southwest corner of Monterrey and Country Club and on the east corner of Country Club and Via Scena. The Commission reviewed and discussed the height of the perimeter wall and stated that they didn't know why they needed nine and a half feet off the grade. Mr. Komran Shahhosseini, representative stated that the wall is eight feet with a wrought iron feature in the front with pilasters at nine and a half feet from finished grade. To have it all eight feet including the sides would look like they pasted it on to the existing wall and would not provide the articulation that differentiates it from the existing wall. The Commission reviewed and discussed the monument sign. Commissioner Vuksic felt it was massive, but he liked the proportions. He stated that there is a lot of mass around the signs and it really isn't a sign. He felt the sign was the part under the archway. He expressed that the rest of it is an extension of the architecture of the building. Commissioner Touschner stated that sixteen feet is really long. Mr. Shahhosseini stated that there will be a lot more articulation to the monument itself and said that if you look at the scale of the building that was already approved, it fits within that scale. Ms. Schrader stated that it is a two-story building and in context both Country Club and Monterey are pretty large streets. Mr. Shahhosseini stated that it is about 40 feet off the curb so it's not a wall that you are directly facing as a pedestrian. It is far enough away that you can take in the scale with the sign and the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that looking at the sign, the size of the lettering is five feet high, with thin letters and has a great style to it with tile, plaster and detailing. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090414min.doc Page 5 of 18 ✓ ..r+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic asked if the archway would be recessed, otherwise it will look like it's pasted on a big wall. Mr. Shahhosseini believed that it was a part of the design, but it wasn't clear on the plans. Commissioner Vuksic asked if he could provide staff with a section of the detail through the archway. Commissioner Touschner expressed her concerns that the sign was too long and discussed the tile variations in the sign. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to grant approval subject to: 1) providing a section of the arch detail to staff for review and approval; and 2) review of landscape plans by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 5. CASE NO: RV 09-164 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DANIELLE WILCOX, 73417 Little Bend Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a RV (trailer) on side of circular driveway. LOCATION: 73-417 Little Bend Trail ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a twelve-foot high recreational vehicle (RV) in their front yard with two options. Option 1 would be located on the east side of the property. The applicant would remove an existing palm tree, hedge, and scrubs in order to park the RV. The applicant is proposing to plant either ficus or bamboo trees on both sides of the RV. Option 2 is to park the RV on the west side of the property. The RV would be between existing ocotillo and bougainvillea. The neighbor to the west has an existing hedge shown in the photos that will screen the RV from their property. The applicant is proposing to plant either ficus or bamboo on both sides in order to screen the RV. A Notice of Public Hearing GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090414min.doc Page 6 of 18 NOW -Avol ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 for this project was mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the applicant's site. It was noted that one neighbor in attendance, was opposed to the RV and two other neighbors not in attendance asked staff to convey their opposition to the Commission. Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Recreational Vehicles on Private Property, states the measurement of a RV shall not exceed twelve feet in height, which this RV falls under as measured to its highest point of twelve feet. Furthermore, this chapter states that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve and issue a permit to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots and public streets. Staff believes the location and screening is adequate as the RV exists in the current photographs. Ms. Danielle Wilcox, applicant stated that the RV is about 65 feet from the street and they are proposing bamboo or ficus plants to be placed on either side of the RV as well as a gate to further screen the RV. She indicated that they can remove a palm tree on the east side and park the RV in that location as well. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the grade differential was between their lot and their neighbors. Ms. Wilcox answered that they were about six to eight feet higher and said that the RV is about 10.5 feet high, not including the A/C equipment on top. She presented photos of other RVs in her neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods in Palm Desert that are not covered with landscape, but some were behind gates. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant has a really tough condition even with space on the side because it is very hard to screen these units. Ms. Wilcox stated that since they sit so far back on the lot this area could be considered a side yard. Ms. Carolyn Relay, neighbor indicated that she just recently bought the house across the street at 73-416 Little Bend and when she bought the house the applicant hadn't yet bought the RV. She stated that she has a beautiful view of the hills, but now all she sees is the RV with the word "rampage" on the back of it, which looks like a big white billboard. She stated that her neighbor Jim Anglin, 73-408 Little Bend, who could not attend the meeting, called GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090414min.doc Page 7 of 18 tirrr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 her on Friday and stated that he was also concerned because that is his view as well. She understands that the applicants care about their property and she knows they will screen the RV with plants, but that will also eliminate the view. Ms. Wilcox stated that if they remove the palm tree and put the RV in front of the garage then it would be like an extension of the garage and no view would be lost because it would be lower than the garage roof and fully screened on the left and right. Ms. Relay said that this big, white thing would still be her view out her front room window. Mr. Wilcox stated that there is an opportunity to excavate some of the ground where it is currently parked, which is high. Commissioner Gregory once again stated that staff should research a clearer means of addressing these issues because people have RVs and other people don't like RVs. It's hard for the Commission to be consistent with their decisions because each case is different. The homes are always different, the lots are different, the grading is different, and the views are different. The Commission scrutinizes architectural changes and yet here is something that is a huge piece of architecture and much more glaringly different than architecture itself. He felt that the way the code is written it should be substantially screened. Commissioner Gregory expressed that the applicant's suggestion to excavate is wonderful because they have a large piece of property and it reflects their seriousness of keeping it there. Mr. Bagato stated that if they went that way this should be continued because of drainage issues and staff would want to make sure that this is even possible before they have approval. The Commission and the applicant discussed the possibility of excavation and the drainage issues. Mr. Swartz stated that the applicant would have to provide a grading plan and have it reviewed by Public Works. The Commission reviewed and discussed the areas being proposed and the screening possibilities. Commissioner Lambell clarified the options. She stated that their first choice would be to park it on the west side, taking out the palm tree, the bougainvillea, and then substantially screening the sides with hedges of either ficus or bamboo. The second choice is up near the house which is certainly much more visible as an architectural element of the property and to get it low enough staff GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\NMinutes\2009WR090414min.doc Page 8 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 would have to see a plan to see if they could really get it down. Mr. Wilcox stated that they could excavate three or four feet and Commissioner Lambell felt that it wouldn't be enough to get it out the way of the neighbor's view. Commissioner Levin expressed his concern about giving the applicant a false sense of hope of screening it from the east and the west, but there is no way to screen the front of the RV that faces the street. Commissioner Gregory made a motion to have a plan prepared by a professional so that the dimensions are accurate. That person can also look at the opportunities in that location to drop or excavate so they won't have a problem. He explained that substantially screened means that the impact of the RV is totally minimal. Ms. Wilcox said that the RV is almost substantially screened. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that because it is so big it is not close to being substantially screened. Commissioner Lambell explained to the applicant that the Commission was looking for screening on both sides and the front. She asked the applicant'to talk to someone to help her draw up the plans to show the Commission how far the RV sits back off the street which will also determine how high the fence can be. Commissioner Gregory stated that if landscape is a part of this, the applicant would have to submit a landscape plan to: be reviewed by the Landscape Specialist. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case RV 09-164 for a maximum of 60 days subject to: 1) submitting a professionally drawn plan indicating accurate dimensions to excavate, address drainage issues and substantial screening; 2) submit a landscape plan for staff's review; and 3) recreational vehicle (trailer) to remain on property during approval process. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090414m1n.doc Page 9 of 18 'wAW *Mae ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 6. CASE NO: MISC 09-155 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NANCY FARRIS, 44-750 San Antonio Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a double gate and block wall on the side of property. LOCATION: 44-750 San Antonio Circle ZONE: R-1 Ms. Schrader presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a new six-foot block wall to replace the fallen wood fence at the current legally non- conforming setback of twenty feet. The proposed wall would stand approximately eight feet from the curb and the house is approximately fourteen feet from the curb on the street side. The applicant wishes to replace the street-side wood fence along the south side of the property facing San Gorgonio Way. The residents would be protected from street exposure if a wall were allowed. The improvement to the residential streetscape would be an improvement. The applicant would be required to build a wall with decorative block only. Ms. Schrader stated that a Notice of Public Hearing for this project was mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the applicant's site. Staff has not received any comments in favor or opposition. The Commission reviewed the plan and photographs of the house and sidewalk, and discussed the location of the fence and a ten- foot double gate. They were concerned with the width of the gate and stated that having such a large gate is not always attractive and a wall could be landscaped. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a material selection. Ms. Schrader stated that decorative block would be required. Commissioner Gregory said that it is pretty hard to articulate the wall in conformance with current standards and suggested pilasters. Mr. Bagato stated that they could require pilasters next to the gate openings and the corners where the returns will be. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant could put indents in the wall for some trees to help that two-foot planting area. He GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\H Minutes\200TAR090414min.doc Page 10 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 thought even an L-footing would help. Commissioner Gregory thought that putting in the gate would break up the wall and the gate could be attractive. Commissioner Levin asked if the wall was in the public right of way. Ms. Schrader stated that because those houses were built in the `70s there is no city imposed right of way there. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval subject to: 1) decorative block approved by staff; 2) decorative double gate to be set in at least twelve inches approved by staff; 3) pilasters at each end of the gate and at the corner where the wall returns to the house; 3) the L-footing towards the house not the two foot planter area; and 4) landscape plan to be reviewed by staff. Motion carried 6-0. 7. CASE NO: MISC 09-141 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARK MELZER-MDR ARCHITECTS, 9511 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to delete a tower element of residential building types B & C; Westin Desert Willow Resort Villas. LOCATION: 39-500 Portola Avenue ZONE: P.R. 5 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval to delete a tower element on building B at the height of 43 feet and on building C at the height of 52 feet 8 inches for the Westin Desert Willow Resort Villas located at 39-500 Portola Avenue. The property is an irregular shape lot totaling 28.75 acres. On March 12, 2007, City Council approved eighteen buildings totaling 300 units. Building B totals 33,515 square feet and varies between two and three stories tall with a 41-foot 8-inch maximum roof height and a tower element at 43 feet high. There are ten B buildings with sixteen suites in each totaling 160 units. Building C totals 45,665 square feet and varies between three and four stories tall with a 52- foot 2-inch maximum roof height and a tower element at 52 feet 8 GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090414m1n.doc Page 11 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 inches. There are five C buildings with 22 units in each totaling 110 units. The proposed architectural style can best be described as desert modern utilizing varying roof heights and massing, vertical and horizontal elements, low roof pitch, stone veneer columns, metal panels and fascia, smooth stucco earth tone colors and decorative roof tiles. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on December 12, 2006, reviewed and approved the proposed building design. Staff is requesting that the Commission approves the request to delete a tower element on buildings B and C. Photos were submitted of buildings B and C with and without tower elements and the addition of chimneys. Commissioner Levin stated that they are also adding screen walls around the A/C units so there is more to this request than just deleting the tower elements. Mr. Mark Melzer, representative stated that the design idea of the buildings currently being built was that they needed to have a variety of mass of scale. It was felt with the size of the buildings that the tower element, which is only six feet high, was not really necessary in the massing of the building. The overall resort has plenty of variety, mass, scale, and texture so this one element is really not necessary. The towers are not structural elements and not needed for any mechanical reason, it is strictly a visual element. He said that the chimneys were raised because of a code requirement. They found that the chimneys were not quite high enough because of the nearby slope of the roof and there is a ten-foot requirement. There are some mechanical screens that are not very high at all and in pure elevation they are probably four, four and a half feet tall. They are not perceptible because the actual roof on building B is about 5,000 square feet and you are talking about something that is 60 feet wide by approximately 80 to 85 feet long. It is a very large mass and these elements are very small in comparison to the actual mass. The other thing they wanted to do was to break up the symmetry of the building which was consciously done during design so buildings A, B and C have the same vocabulary, but they are massed so they deliberately don't have symmetry in the buildings. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it appeared that they had screens on both plans, the original and the proposed revisions, and asked if they were raising those taller. Mr. Melzer answered that they were not raising them taller and explained that the drawings they were looking at was a Planning Commission rendering to show the color and texture. He said that as the building evolved there was a few GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20MAF090414min.doc Page 12 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 things that changed but the screens that hide the mechanical units have been there a while. Commissioner Touschner pointed out that they are drawn differently. Mr. Melzer explained that what they were looking at were the early drawings. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the elevations were accurate. Mr. Melzer said that they were. Commissioner Touschner said that they changed in the elevations. Mr. Melzer stated that it was correct and said that there is more accuracy in the later drawings and explained that there may be a few things on the original elevations that may not be quite accurate today. He said that it should be very close. Commissioner Van Vliet said that they were not close and are really substantially different. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the material was for the screens and Mr. Melzer said they would be painted metal screens. Commissioner Touschner stated that her sense is that they would be set back enough that you probably would not be able to see them. She was curious that if they couldn't draw it correctly the first time how does the Commission know that it will be drawn correctly the next time and if they will actually shield the unit. Mr. Melzer said that they have done the site studies and the sections through the building and by conditions of approval the units cannot be visible. Mr. Bagato stated that they are working with Redevelopment and with the property owner and was sure that they are probably under more scrutiny than anyone else in the city to try to get approval for this project. He said that the A/C equipment will be reviewed before it goes through the final inspection. Commissioner Touschner said not to make them taller than they need to be and said that there is a two-foot disconnect with these drawings and something is misunderstood. Now that it is being built she recommended that someone take a look at this and put a tape measure on it. She thought that most of them are set back enough where you won't perceive it. She pointed out that a horizontal bar is being added to the top of the building that didn't exist before. Mr. Melzer said that before they went through the initial approval the screens were probably weren't as thought out. Those screens are in and set far back from the edges of the roof. He pointed out on the photos that very little of them are barely visible. Commissioner Vuksic sympathized with the applicant that they have to screen the units, but he was not convinced that they are not visible. He felt they were not set back very far at all. He pointed out that the GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR0%414min.doc Page 13 of 18 NAW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 only thing shielding that screen from view from any distance is the other parapet, which is three feet below it. Commissioner Touschner thought he brought up a good point and asked what you are going to see from another building. She suggested that the applicant submit a section showing the units, slope of the roofs, and the pads to make sure they are screened. She said that if they had an elevation from one of the short ends of the building it would address a lot of the issues. Commissioner Vuksic stated that more attention needs to be given to the screens and it needs to be carefully finished at this point. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve the removal of the tower element on buildings B and C and requested that the applicant submit additional documentation to show that all HVAC equipment is properly screened and that no thin edges of screening material will be visible. Mr. Melzer stated that there are returns and it is completely screened behind roof elements and pitches. Commissioner Touschner stated that the drawings submitted do not clearly demonstrate the returns. Mr. Melzer said that they would gladly show the Commission the returns. He indicated that they would bring the drawings back for staff to review. Commissioner Vuklsic felt that the applicant does not intend to come back with a clear demonstration of how they will screen the units, finish the panels, or make sure we can't see any visible edges of the screens. Mr. Melzer stated that the exhibits do not answer all those questions but everything is on the drawings. It's just a question of them giving the Commission more information showing that this has been done. Mr. Bagato stated that he could pull the construction drawings for review. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\200MR090414min.doc Page 14 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet felt that this should be continued even the elimination of the tower and asked them to bring this back with the proper information because there are substantial discrepancies in the drawings submitted. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if this matches the construction documents he said there is a problem because you can see the ends of the screens. Mr. Melzer stated that they would look at it very carefully; however the roof elements do hide the edges of the screens. He stated that those units and the edges of the screens will not be visible. Commissioner Vuksic asked who reviewed this and Mr. Melzer stated that it has gone through the entire plan check process. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Building Department isn't going to look at the things that they have talked about today. Mr. Melzer stated that it has gone through Planning so he will bring the drawings to show what all has been requested. He knows that the screening of the units is the main concern and stated again that they are screened. Commissioner Vuksic stated that at the time the working drawings came through no one indicated that the screens were added so it was up to Planning to look through a massive set of drawings and try to figure out what was changed; he felt that wasn't fair. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the screens have been on there since day one. Mr. Melzer stated that they were not on there since day one but they were added and went through the typical approval process quite a while ago. Commissioner Van Vliet expressed his concerns with the drawings submitted because they are so different from the working drawings. Mr. Melzer stated that they are different in small minor variations. He again said that he would go through and show the Commission all the screening details and the sides of the buildings. He agreed that there are small discrepancies because those are the original rendered plans and they didn't go back and do full-on renderings based on the latest adjustments. He stated that he would be happy to show the Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it is better to bring changes to someone's attention than to just go ahead and add something like metal screens hoping that no one notices when it goes through plan check. GAPIanningWanineJudy\WordRes\AMinutes\200MR090414min.doc Page 15 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION •.fe MINUTES April 14, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there was a motion and a second was made and he called for a vote. Commissioner Levin asked that the motion be restated. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve the removal of the tower element on buildings B and C. The Commission also requested that the applicant submit additional documentation to show that all HVAC equipment is properly screened and that no thin edges of screening material will be visible. Commissioner Levin asked Mr. Bagato if the Commission could make that recommendation because the request was for the elimination of the tower. Mr. Bagato stated that it would be best to catch it now because if they approve the elimination of the tower element and later see the screening and are not happy with, there is nothing the Commission can do about it. Commissioner Touschner stated that what the applicant presented was a drawing that looks different than what was approved. The Commission is not asking for anything that was previously approved. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they could just approve the elimination of the tower elements only and request no other modifications to the building. Mr. Bagato said that the screening was included in the construction drawings and agreed with Commissioner Vuksic about going through hundreds of pages of construction drawings and not catching that they added a screen wall around the equipment. So now it's in the construction drawings and the applicant has a building permit that has an approved screen wall. Mr. John Lambert, owner stated that there were two issues here. One is the elimination of the tower element and the other is the screening element. The reason the screens were added was because they went from an original chill water system on the property to a split system, therefore the condensing units had to go on the roof and they had to add the screens. It was not like they tried to hide it from the city. He took exception to the comment that they were trying to push anything through the city without being reviewed. They had to put the screens up there and they went through a couple of plan checks because of the thin elements and the returns on the corners. The construction documents represent a full set of plans, elevations from all sides of the buildings, and there are no areas like what is being claimed. If it means that they have to give MDR Architects more direction to fulfill the latest request then they will come back as promptly as they can and satisfy the Commission's concerns. However, he has to keep the GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2W9WR0%414min.doc Page 16 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 project moving so he has no objections to getting this information together this week, make some slight modifications in the field, and submit to staff. Commissioner Touschner appreciated that he came forward and made that offer. She asked if staff could look at the drawings and verify that the construction drawings adequately screens the equipment and shows the returns. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if staff is not convinced then they can bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Lambert expressed to the Commission that they don't want the city to be unhappy with the screens so whatever process they have to go through to re-evaluate the screens they will give direction to modify these things as fast as they can. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval of the elimination of tower elements on Buildings B and C. The Commission requested that the applicant submit additional documentation to show that all HVAC equipment is properly screened and that no thin edges of screening material will be visible. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: ZOA 09-104 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new comprehensive sign program for the City. Mr. Bagato presented changes to the Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to update and revise the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56, Signs. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to recommend approval of new sign guidelines as presented. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090414min.doc Page 17 of 18 *ftw -090 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2009 VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. TONY BA ATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090414min.doc Page 18 of 18