Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-13 '� � �7� � � � � CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' ' MINUTES March 13, 2013 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 5 Chris Van Vliet, Vice Chairman X 4 1 John Vuksic X 4 1 Karel Lambell X 5 Allan Levin X 4 1 Paul Clark X 4 1 Gene Colombini X 5 Michael McAuliffe X 2 Jim Mclntosh X 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Melissa Nale, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 26, 2013 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve the February 26, 2013 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote with Commissioners Levin and Clark abstaining. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � � • MINUTES March 13, 2013 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-75 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ROBERT JEFFREY COX, 1614 Bilberry Lane, Banning, CA 92220 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to build a single-family home at a proposed height of 16'-9". LOCATION: 72-400 Cactus Drive ZONE: R-1 Ms. Melissa Nale, Assistant Planner, said this was consideration to build a single family home at the proposed height of 16'-9". This has met all requirements; setbacks, height, and lot coverage, with the exception that it is above the 15' height limit. According to code, anything over 15' up to 18' total has to come to the Architectural Review Commission for approval. A majority of the house was burned in a fire leaving only 610 square feet of garage and house space remaining. She presented site photos and some of the homes in the neighborhood. This is a very small neighborhood surrounded by commercial development. The applicant states that some of the homes in this area are above 15' and look relatively close to that height limit. In staff's opinion it looks like it would be in compliance with the neighborhood and 16'-9" is not that much above the 15' height limit. The architecture is typical of desert contemporary ranch style and the applicant has stated he is not changing the color of the house. Staff is recommending approval. Ms. Nale also pointed out that in staff's opinion the east window fenestration pattern needs additional work. The front fa�ade looks like it needs to be a little more enhanced. MR. JEFF COX, applicant, pointed out that the plans did not reflect a 2' shelf that comes down that he will raise around the windows in neutral colors. There is rock on the front of the house that he will carry through and a column in the front of the house that will also have the wainscoting around it. Commissioner Vuksic noticed that the stone would be on the column at the entrance and asked if it would be in any other locations. MR. COX said it exists on the front of the garage. G\Planning\JanineJudylWord Files\1 ARCNMinutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 2 of 15 • ARCHITECTURAL RE' ���W COMMISSION MINUTES �'`"""'` `"� March 13, 2013 Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he would have some kind of a privacy wall on the side yard. Mr. COX said there will be a gate there. On one side there is a wall and gate and the other there was a wrought iron fence that went across. There is an existing wall that goes all the way around the house. At this point, several people were talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the house would basically have the same shape. MR. COX said everything will be the same except that he wanted to go with the higher ceilings. Commissioner Vuksic said this house seems consistent with the other homes on this street. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) trim detail shall be added to the window facing the street; staff to review; 2) stone wainscot shall be added to the entrance column; 3) columns at the garage shall wrap around the corner to the wall; and 4) stone shall be taken down to the earth rather than suspended in the air. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 9-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Court, Indian Wetls, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a carport located in the front yard 20' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-120 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this case was presented at the last two meetings. At the first meeting on February 12, 2013, it was approved for conceptual design and at the second meeting on February 26, 2013, it came back for approval of construction drawings. It was continued subject to carport wrapping the fascia to tie into G:\PlanningWanine JudylWord Files\t ARC\1Minutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � • , MINUTES March 13, 2013 existing fascia and no exposed hardware. The applicant states he is not able to do that. He presented the construction plans for review. MR. DAVID NARZ, applicant, understood there were three suggestions on a redesign at the previous meeting. He described his existing carport and said by dropping the ledger down as was suggested, he would have to remove stucco, re-engineer the carport lowering it to a level of 6'-7" and when it goes out he would still have to put it over a beam post construction and cantilever to get 18'. That beam would get down to about 5'-7" which means it would essentially be a patio cover because his vehicle wouldn't fit under it. He presented photos of 10 carports in his neighborhood and described the details of each one. He understands what the Commission is asking because there are a lot of houses that have just the straight lines. He was here originally to get approval of an 18' setback because when the City incorporated this area the restriction was that if you convert your old carport to a room, you have to add a carport. However, now with restrictions on the setbacks, he is not able to have it setback 20'. The Commission and the applicant discussed the post to beam hardware. MR. NARZ said if you look at all the post beam connections they are not visible because iYs all painted. The Commission reviewed the photos presented of the neighborhood carports and discussed the hardware. Commissioner Vuksic said he walked Texas Avenue because he wanted to give this a fair look. He was hoping to be convinced that this was fine and in keeping with the neighborhood; it's not what he walked away with. He was actually impressed with a lot of the carports on Texas Avenue and thought they were nicely done. He reviewed the applicant's house and inspected a carport about three to four houses down that was similar to this as far as the quality and exposed hardware and framing underneath; although it aligned the carport structure with the fascia. The house was architecturally interesting and he could see how the carport worked with the home. MR. NARZ asked if the Commission could agree that people have different design ideas and thinks doing shapes is okay in some cases and not having a straight line is not necessarily the norm. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. NARZ discussed the plaster below. MR. NARZ said the plaster was original to the house. They continued to discuss the wood fascia, wood posts and connections and how to G:1PlanninglJanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 4 of 15 • ARCHITECTURAL RE`�"^W COMMISSION MINUTES '�"' `"''` March 13, 2013 bury it all with a piaster bottom like the rest of the house instead of having exposed 2X's on it. MR. NARZ's engineer stated that it would be a lot thicker if they did that. If the Commission wants a 6X beam on each side they will have to be more like a 6' x 12' or a 6' x 14' to get that out there and then carry it the other way. That profile gets much thicker than any of the other fascias on the house. MR. NARZ asked if the Commissioner was suggesting that he remove stucco from the face of his house, put a ledger to that, re-waterproof, and still tie into the roof. He said that it would be too costly. Commissioner Vuksic said yes for it to be consistent with the quality of the other carports around the neighborhood. MR. NARZ said he could agree to disagree. Mr. Bagato said this was here for architecture compatibility and when the applicant first came to Planning, he only wanted the setbacks approved and didn't give enough design details and this was the risk he ran by waiting. MR. NARZ said lines were lines and they haven't changed. Mr. Bagato said the plans didn't have any specific details it was just for the setbacks. IYs an exception based on architectural merit and not allowed by the code. It's the purview of the Commission to decide the architectural merit of the carport. Commissioner Gregory asked if the carports in the photos were built prior to incorporation. Mr. Bagato said the City didn't incorporate until 1973 and there is a lot of hodge podge within that country club and the county allowed different designs. Staff looks at proposals for current standards and how compatible it will be with the applicant's home and the adjacent homes. The Commission and the applicant discussed the setback reduction exception and the architectural design of the carport. Commissioner Vuksic referred to photo number 10 and said it was on a house that is very different from the applicant's. It's a lot more contemporary looking and the carport works on that house. The applicant's house has a plastered bottom on the existing cover and the G:\PlanningWanineJudylWord FilesN ARC11Minutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � � . MINUTES March 13, 2013 way the applicant is proposing his carport it looks utility driven and not much consideration to the aesthetics of it. Commissioner Gregory said the applicant clearly feels strongly about the approach this design is going. He asked if there are ways from an architectural prospective that this proposal, while different from what has been suggested, might still be workable. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't see it because it comes down to three basic things; one is the height difference, two is the exposed framing, and three is the hardware. He discussed the height, the alignment with the house, and the exposed framing. MR. NARZ asked if he dropped the carport and had larger lumber coming towards the street, how he would get to the point without moving the posts out to the right-of-way. Commissioner Vuksic sketched out how this could be done. He and the applicant discussed the construction of the carport. Commissioner Lambell said the Commission doesn't like to fall into the opportunity to design the applicanYs carport. Our responsibility is to make sure that the aesthetics of what is proposed not only enhances the property but also is compatible with the rest of the community. What Commissioner Vuksic has given the applicant is an alternative and rather than dismissing it, she suggested taking that idea and measure the vehicle to see if it will fit under the carport. MR. NARZ said that overall it does conform to the neighborhood. Commissioner Gregory suggested the Commission go out and take a look at the other carports in the neighborhood to give the applicant a fair response. Mr. Bagato said the Commission can make a decision and the applicant can appeal to Council. MR. NARZ asked if there was an opportunity for the Commission to vote to see how they feel about the project. Commissioner Levin asked Commissioner Vuksic what his objections were. Upon reading the minutes he thought the issue was only about the hardware being exposed. Commissioner Vuksic said his objection was with the way it would look at the height it was connected to the building and how that would G:\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word FilesN ARC\1 Minutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 6 of 15 . • ARCHITECTURAL RE' '�W COMMISSION MINUTES `''"'" �`"'"�� March 13, 2013 juxtapose to the existing cover and exposed framing below while the existing cover is plastered below. It would make it look like it was just added on without a lot of consideration to the aesthetics and how it marries to the existing house. Commissioner Levin asked if the applicant were to leave it at that height and plaster the underside, would that assuage some of the concerns. Commissioner Vuksic said this is worth another look because he thinks the neighborhood is worthy of it. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to continue to give the Commission an opportunity to look at this more closely. Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Levin asked if the applicant would submit new drawings. MR. NARZ asked if they could take the vote. Commissioner Gregory said they can take it to a vote, but it would be for continuance. He thought this would work to the applicant's advantage to give the non-architects on the Commission a chance to take a look at it anci have a better understanding of it so they can then vote with some confidence. Commissioner Gregory and the applicant discussed the motion and taking the vote. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission was looking for additional input from the applicant or would it be continued for two weeks to give the Commissioners the chance to go out and take a look at the house and the compatibility of the neighborhood. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development said there would be Brown Act issues if a quorum of people got together. She suggested that if this is continued for two weeks, that each Commissioner goes out independently and takes a look at the house. Commissioner Gregory said there is a motion for a continuance and called for the vote. The motion carried 9-0 to continue. G:\Planning\JanineJudylWordFiles\1ARC\1Minutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 7 of 15 M NUTESCTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � • . March 13, 2013 MR. NARZ wanted to clarify that sometime within the next two weeks the Commission would come out independently to his home and will have formed an opinion whether it will be approved the way it has been presented or he goes back and redesigns it. Commissioner Gregory made a suggestion to the applicant to take photos of homes in the neighborhood as examples of what he wishes to do or ones that look good which will bolster his arguments. Then submit the photos to staff to distribute to the Commission so they can specifically visit those homes and see what the applicant is calling for in a positive way. The Commission discussed a redesign be submitted prior to the meeting. Mr. Bagato said the Commission needs to form a decision as a whole whether or not it should be redesigned and then if the applicant doesn't agree, he can appeal to City Council. We don't have to have him redesign it yet. The applicant has heard the comments and if he can come up with ways to address them that he's comfortable with within the next two weeks it would help. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to continue Case MISC 13-32 subject to the Commissioner's conducting an independent onsite visit to the applicant's home to review the architecture of the home: Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 9-0 vote. 3. CASE NO: MISC 13-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• DOUGLASS KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 6' high block wall 12' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 44-870 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this case was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant to return with a 6' block wall and gate design 12' back from face of curb. The applicant submitted plans similar to the existing wall and gate. Staff is recommending approval. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesN ARC\1Minutes12 01 311 30 3 1 2min.docx Page 8 of 15 , . ARCHITECTURAL RE"'EW COMMISSION � MINUTES � """"'` March 13, 2013 Commissioner Levin asked -for the purpose of the gate, how it would operate, and if there was a driveway cut. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, representative, said the gate will be used for access to the yard and it will slide along the wall. At this point, there is no driveway cut. Commissioner Levin said if you are going to use it to access the property, you can't get a vehicle off the street with a 12' setback because the vehicle will be hanging out into traffic. MS. HOUSKEN said it would be an access to the property to get in there for the demolition of the north wall and for the gardeners. It is not going to be used as a daily parking facility. Commissioner Colombini understood there would be an inset of the gate. MS. HOUSKEN was confused. She thought the Commission wanted the pilasters to match what was existing to the south; which includes spacing with the rock. The wall to the north has two pilasters which are on either side of the gate. She indicated that Mr. Kopp checked with staff regarding this and was told that it was okay to extend it into to that 12' setback. Mr. Bagato said the applicant was told it had to be inset or have columns. Mr. Swartz said the wall would also have to have either an 18" undulation or pilasters either in the front or back. Commissioner Lambell said on the gate to the house, the pilasters come out and the gate is set back. She believes the Commission said that was a good look and to continue that design. She felt that applicant has given the Commission what was asked for. Commissioner Levin continued to discuss the gate and the issue of it being 12' back from the curb. He didn't agree with it being so close to a curb. He asked how the gardeners would gain access to the lot. MS. HOUSKEN said that all ingress and egress will be through the main gate that is already there. This new gate will be more of utility gate and no one will be parking in that area. G\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word Filesll ARC\1Minutes�2013\130312min.docx Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE`"�W COMMISSION • MINUTES � � � March 13, 2013 Commissioner Levin said the gate to the south is not parallel to the curb. IYs off at an angle which allows you to pull in a little bit more off the street without hanging halfway out. He asked Ms. Christina Canales, Public Works, if the applicant was going to do a driveway, would the applicant have to get an encroachment permit and would Public Works give them a driveway. Ms. Canales believes Public Works would approve the driveway, but the applicant would have to obtain an encroachment permit. She asked where the pilasters where located... (inaudible). MS. HOUSKEN said the pilasters would be 24" x 24" x 6' high so they'd be two feet closer than the wall. Ms. Canales said that would be in the public-right-of-way and Public Works would not allow that. Commissioner Gregory suggested keeping it 24", push it back 2' to make them legal and now it's back 14' back from curb face. He asked what the City requires as far as accessibility for a gate off the street. Mr. Bagato said staff has seen gates right where the fence would go and that would either be 15' or 20' from curb depending on the height. A typical gate at 6' high would be 20' back from curb. The applicant is asking for an exception at 12' back from curb. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding more relief to the street by angling the gate out to the north and adding a pilaster with stone behind the right-of-way creating more room for a car to pull in. Commissioner Gregory said their charge is to conform to the most recent ordinance on walls where they have to be articulated in some manner and Commissioner Vuksic's suggestion is one means of doing that. We are not supposed to be approving straight walls so the applicant will have to put in pilasters or have some movement to the walL ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 13-42 subject to articulating the wall and moving the gate back 18" with no encroachment into the 12' right-of-way. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet and carried by an 8-0-0-1 vote with Commissioner Clark abstaining. G:\PlanninglJanineJudylWord Filesll ARC\1Minutes120131130312min.docx Page 10 of 15 , • ARCHITECTURAL RE'"'�W COMMISSION ' MINUTES ``""'°` `� March 13, 2013 4. CASE NO: MISC 12-315 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RETAIL OPPORTUNITY INVESTMENTS CORP (ROIC), Attn: Robert Doran, 8905 Town Venter Drive, Suite 108, San Diego, CA 92122 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to replace four existing monument signs and new landscape along Country Club Drive and Cook Street; Desert Springs Market Place. LOCATION: 74-880 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC (2) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this proposal is for modification to four monument signs and landscape for the Desert Springs Marketplace. He presented sign boards for the Commission's review and a map where the monument signs will be located. He described the changes and upgrades to monument Sign A located on the corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street; monument Sign B located at the entrance off Cook Street; monument Sign C located at Marketplace off Cook Street; and monument Sign D located at the entrance to Morton's off Country Club Drive. All signs will include the new logo for Desert Springs Marketplace. Monument sign B is currently in the right-of-way and the applicant will have to get a Hold Harmless Agreement. Monument Sign D is located on City property and staff is checking to see whether or not they can modify that sign. He indicated that the landscaping plan is also being updated. Commissioner Levin asked if signs B, C, and D were double-sided. MR. JIM CARMODY, Sign-A-Rama Representative, said they were all double-sided and internally illuminated, as well as the logo. MR. DORN said they came before this Commission three or four months ago regarding painting and elevation upgrades, which are now nearing completion. The awnings are going up next week which is the tast piece of the fa�ade work. The next piece of this center's transformation is the signage and landscaping. This project is a significant transformation upgrade of the center and at the end of the day they are spending close to one million dollars on this center. When first purchased it was severely dilapidated and was not maintained for years. They are planning on doing a major upgrade on the corner of Cook Street and Country Club and are excited about how this will turn out. They are 99% leased, soon to be 100% leased. He G:1Planning\JanineJudylWord FilesN ARC\1Minutes�2013N30312min.docx Page 11 of 15 M NUTESCTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � • ; March 13, 2013 believes that when they are done, they will have one of the premier shopping centers here in the desert. MR. RANDY PURNELL, Landscape Designer, said the landscape renovation consists of the south parkway and the east parkway with a lot of attention focused on the corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive. They are paying close attention to the landscape corresponding to the new signage and upgrades at that corner with additional palm canopy. They will be clearing out unsightly overgrown plantings in front of the water feature, exposing that to the traffic, and keeping new plantings low in front of the water features. This will consist of desert landscaping with some movement of the soil and elevating up to 3' and landscape lighting will accent the palm canopy and water features. Commissioner Levin had an issue with the berm and felt the water feature would be hidden and didn't understand how that would enhance vehicular view. MR. PURNELL said they are recessing the grade minus 12 up to the water feature and berming up behind the signage on each side of the feature. The new grading plan will frame the water feature and then expose the direct view to the water falls. He said they will be adding some additional boulders and cobblestone to expand the water feature and naturalize a bit; spreading the feature out in a more natural manner. Commissioner Levin still had concerns that the water feature will be buried in the palms and pointed out how the views would be obscured. MR. PURNELL said he doesn't have any problem with moving some of the palms around because their intention is to expose the water feature. MR. DORN said originally that corner was a very expensive project and to him it is the highlight of that corner. They are re-working that design so the flow of water increases to bring that design out even more. They have also incorporated see-through letters on the monument sign so you can see more of the water feature. The Commission reviewed and discussed the detail on monument sign B and suggested shifting it down a bit. They thought the monument sign might be a little crowded with the stop sign in that location. The Commission reviewed and discussed the drawings for the internally lit monument signs. It was suggested that some type of rheostat be applied to the infinite white. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of G:1PlanninglJanineJudylWordFiles\tARC1lMinutes12013\130312min.docx Page 12 of 15 . • ARCHITECTURAL RE` --W COMMISSION ' MINUTES `"'""` � March 13, 2013 Community Development stated that dimmers are required in the code. The Commission suggested that the word "Marketplace°' be a different color than "Desert Springs" as well as the logo since it has a very different style. Commissioner Vuksic said the corner sign is extremely elegant and he likes the way it comes out of the ground, but he couldn't say the same about the other signs. For example, Sign B looks clunky and top heavy and doesn't melt into the ground like the corner sign does. MR. CURSON suggested eliminating the bottom base... (inaudible). He said the middle portion can set onto a stone base very much like the corner monument. Commissioner Vuksic felt it might make it look more top heavy. The Commission reviewed and discussed the size of the letters on the monuments signs. The applicant said they will re-check the size of the letters. Commissioner Gregory suggested that Sign B be studied more. Commissioner Vuksic stated the names on Sign C didn't look integrated into the design. As you get more tenant names, signs need to get artistic and it becomes a little more challenging to do well. MR. DORN asked if it would be possible to pull back their application for signage and just get approval of the corner monument sign and landscape and then come back to the next meeting incorporating a lot of that design in the other monuments. Mr. Swartz said the Commission could consider approving Sign A and the landscaping and continue B, C, and D. Commissioner McAuliffe wanted to know what the edge material was on "Desert Springs" because one drawing shows it dark and another drawing shows it white. MR. CURSON said the intent was for it to be dark with a dark bronze cap and the acrylic face will be white. The Commission and MR. CARMODY reviewed and discussed the depth of the letters and the font style in relationship to readability. MR. CURSON said the intent of the letters were to make them "sculptural" as opposed to just a sign on a building. They also discussed the font variation with "Desert Springs". G:1Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC11Minutes\2013\130312min.docx Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE`��^W COMMISSION � - MINUTES `�` `"'� March 13, 2013 Commissioner Colombini made a motion to accept Sign A, landscape, and to continue Signs B, C, and D. Commissioner Gregory said the plan is like a road map and unlike architecture landscape is subject to motion when they are planning it. So when they realize that there is a blockage of an important view he was sure that somebody will move a palm a bit. Commissioner Clark agreed and suggested adjusting the berm and the palm trees to improve the visibility of the water feature. Commissioner Gregory asked if this amendment to the motion was acceptable. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and the vote carried 9-0. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to approve monument sign A and landscape plans, subject to adjusting the berm and palm trees to improve the visibility of water feature. Continued Signs B, C, and D. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 9-0 vote. 5. CASE NO: MISC 10-238 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)� SHERRY SIDNEY, 915 West Crescent Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exterior color change; Sidney Properties. LOCATION: 73-760 to 73-790 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1,S-P Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was continued from a previous meeting. At that meeting, the color selection was approved subject to allowing the applicant to apply paint swatches on the building for review by the Commission. The applicant has now changed her paint color choices. The face of the building witl be Canyon Cliff and the trim will be Cedar Grove. The Commission reviewed the building and suggested the applicant submit a photo simulation showing the locations of the two colors on all sides of the building. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes12013\130312min.docx Page 14 of 15 � - ARCHITECTURAL RE' ?W COMMISSION MINUTES � � March 13, 2013 Commissioner Colombini made a motion to accept Sign A, landscape, and to continue Signs B, C, and D. Commissioner Gregory said the plan is like a road map and unlike architecture tandscape is subject to motion when they are planning it. So when they realize that there is a blockage of an important view he was sure that somebody will move a palm a bit. Commissioner Clark agreed and suggested adjusting the berm and the palm trees to improve the visibility of the water feature. Commissioner Gregory asked if this amendment to the motion was acceptable. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and the vote carried 9-0. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to approve monument sign A and landscape plans, subject to adjusting the berm and palm trees to improve the visibility of water feature. Continued Signs B, C, and D. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 9-0 vote. 5. CASE NO: MISC 10-238 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHERRY SIDNEY, 915 West Crescent Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exterior color change; Sidney Properties. LOCATION: 73-760 to 73-790 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1,S-P Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was continued from a previous meeting. At that meeting, the color selection was approved subject to allowing the applicant to apply paint swatches on the building�for review by the Commission. The applicant has now changed her paint color choices. The face of the bui�ding will be Canyon Cliff and the trim will be Cedar Grove. The Commission reviewed the building and suggested the applicant submit a photo simulation showing the locations of the two colors on all sides of the building. G\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\t ARC\1Minutes\20t3N30312min.docx Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE��W COMMISSION � � - MINUTES March 13, 2013 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 10-238 subject to applicant providing a photo simulation of the entire building (all sides) showing the application of paint colors; Cedar Grove and Canyon Cliff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 9-0 vote. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Colombini, and a 9-0 vote, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. �--- TONY BAGA , PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY '���� JANINE J D `'�ECORD SECRETARY G:\PlanninglJanine JudylWord FilesN ARC\1Minutes\201 311 30 3 1 2min.docx Page 15 of 15