Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-10 . �,.,r �r PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meetina Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X 4 1 Ronald Gregory X 4 1 Richard Holden X 4 1 Richard O'Donnell X 5 Frank Urrutia X 4 1 Chris Van Vliet X 5 Staff Present Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Steve Buchanan, Senior Plans Examiner Daisy Garcia, Code Enforcement Officer Kim Chafin, Senior Office Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the minutes of the February 24, 1998 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Connor absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES IV. CASES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: TT 28295 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SOUTHLAND COMMUNITIES, One Columbia, Suite 2020, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of six-foot high garden wall on street side yard LOCATION: Tract 28295 at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Deep Canyon Road ZONE: PR-4 Mr. Alvarez reported that the proposed improvement is for a six-foot high garden wall on the street side yards of Phase I for the single-family residential tract known as Palmira. The streets within the development are private, and the wall would be pushed back five feet. The code requires that the wall be 12 feet from the curb. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there is a sidewalk there, to which Mr. Alvarez responded negatively. Chairman Gregory expressed concern about erosion of the slope and asked if this is the main street for the project, to which Mr. Alvarez replied that it is a collector street leading to the main entry. Mr. Alvarez noted that all other walls would have to adhere to minimum standards. Commissioner Urrutia asked if there will be a landscape plan, to which Mr. Alvarez responded affirmatively. Commissioner Urrutia felt that landscaping will make a difference in the appearance of the wall. 2 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Chairman Gregory agreed that landscaping is needed to soften the appearance of the wall, and suggested the use of bushes, vines and vertical trees such as Mexican Fan Palm. Action: tt was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell,to approve the six-foot high garden wall on the street side with the condition that, on the street side, it be 16 inches lower, and on the house side, that the corner be cut to soften the corner, and to follow up with a landscaping plan. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Connor absent. 2. CASE NO.: 4869 SA APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC. for CAM'S CORNER, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of additional signage LOCATION: 74-478 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mark Ross of Imperial Signs stated that there is 19 feet from the eave to the grade. Commissioner O'Donnell expressed opposition to any signage on the towers. Chairman Gregory expressed concern that the building looks like a bunch of signs with something holding them up in the air; so the building is ridiculoulsy over-signed. Mr. Ross stated that he has studied the situation and found that internally illuminated signs can be instatled without the necessity of raceways, to which Commissioner Van Vliet responded that was one of the options approved by the Commission. 3 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the south facing sign on the fascia will be removed, to which Mr. Smith responded that the Commission did not include that as a condition of its previous approval, although the property owner did indicate that he understood that the "Around Back" sign was not looked upon favorably; so he would suggest that the Commission send a message indicating that the Commission would appreciate the removal of the sign. Commissioner O'Donnell emphasized that the "Around Back" sign is particularly unappealing, with which Commissioner Urrutia concurred and suggested that the Commission request its removal. Chairman Gregory noted that the "Around Back" sign was not approved by the Commission, to which Mr. Smith responded that it was approved administratively, and added that the east facing sign has already been permitted. The Commission took no further action. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 98-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COX COMMUNICATIONS PCS, LP, 18200 Von Karman, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an unmanned telecommunication antenna on top of an existing building LOCATION: 73-345 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 (SP) Debbie Melvin of Cox Communications stated that the panels will be colored to match the building, and instead of a mechanical building, five-foot high cabinets will be used. Chairman Gregory noted that the photographs submitted by the applicant do not depict the view from Highway 111 and asked if the equipment will be visible from there, to which Ms. Melvin responded that she doesn't know. 4 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Andy Johnson of Cox Communications commented that the building cannot even be seen on westbound Highway 111 until one is right in front of it, and added that people will barely be able to see the antenna towards the street from the east side of the building. Ms. Melvin noted that the plans have been revised to move the antennae back three feet from the edge of the building and to remove the mechanical structure and replace it with six, five-foot high equipment cabinets. Commissioner Urrutia expressed concern that people on the second floor of the building next door will be able to see this equipment. Commissioner Holden indicated that he would like the antennae pushed back further from the Highway 111 side, to which Ms. Melvin replied that if they are pushed back more than five feet, the signal will not be effective. Commissioner Holden pointed out that this Commission is charged with reviewing the aesthetics of the proposal. Chairman Gregory agreed that the most important view is from Highway 111, and the photographs submitted by the applicant do not provide that perspective. As a compromise, he would suggest moving the antennae back five feet from all sides. Commissioner Urrutia indicated that he would like to see photographs taken from the second floor of the building next door in order to ascertain the impact. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his main concern is the view from Highway 111. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if five feet is the absolute maximum length the antennae could be pushed back from the edge and still be effective, to which Ms. Melvin responded affirmatively. Chairman Gregory suggested that the case be continued and that the applicant provide photographs from Highway 111 so that it can be determined if anything can be done to make the equipment as invisible as possible from Highway 111. 5 . �: �r.r+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Chairman Gregory commented that it may be possible to move the antennae further back and still maintain the signal if the antennae are taller, to which Mr. Alvarez responded that the antennae can be half the height of the building, so for this particular building, the antennae could be 15 feet. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that the applicant provide at least two views from Highway 111, and Commissioner Urrutia asked that photographs also be taken from the second floor deck of the building next door. Chairman Gregory recommended that the applicant place brightly colored pipes the same height as the proposed antennae on the building before the photographs are taken so that the Commission can consider the appearance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to continue the case. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Connor absent. 4. CASE NO.: TT 27710 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOWE RESERVE CORPORATION, 73-121 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of entry wall and landscaping on the east side of Portola LOCATION: East side of Portola Avenue ZONE: PR Mr. Smith reported that the location of the proposed project is the east side of Portola across from the park site at Haystack, and indicated that Commissioner Connor reviewed the plans and noted that Penstemon is proposed for the median, and he would suggest that the plant palette be reconsidered due to the impact of heat. 6 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Chairman Gregory asked if this is a preliminary submittal, to which Mr. Smith responded affirmatively, and added that the City's landscape consultant, Eric Johnson, is reasonably satisfied with the plans. Chairman Gregory agreed with Commissioner Connor's notes about the Penstemon, and suggested that a different plant be used. Action: It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the entry wall and landscaping on the east side of Portola with the condition that the Penstemon be replaced with a ground cover viable for the area. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Commissioner Holden abstaining and Commissioner Connor absent. 5. CASE NO.: RV 98-1 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): JAMES &WENDY DUNHAM, 74557 Gary Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park and store a recreational trailer in the front yard LOCATION: 74-557 Gary Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Alvarez reported that the Code Enforcement Division did a sweep of the neighborhood issuing citations to recreational vehicles (R.V.) parked in public view. The applicant has submitted a request for approval to park and store his R.V. trailer in the front yard. The code requires six-foot screening whenever it is not possible to place the vehicle in the side yard, and the applicant proposes a six-foot fence in front of the R.V., and notes that there is already a six-foot oleander on the other side, and a six-foot lattice fence with a hedge on the other side. James Dunham indicated that he believes his proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the ordinance. 7 � "�w.' �•r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Chairman Gregory asked what material is between the gate and the street, to which Mr. Dunham replied that it is grass, but he would replace it with pea gravel. Chairman Gregory asked how often the vehicle is moved, to which Mr. Dunham replied that it is moved six to 10 times per year. Chairman Gregory stated that grass is more attractive than pea gravel, and since the vehicle would be moved infrequently, he would be interested to know if there would be any problem maintaining the grass, to which Mr. Dunham responded affirmatively, and indicated that he thinks pea gravel would be better. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why the vehicle can't be pushed further back, to which Mr. Dunham replied that there is a gas meter at that location which sticks out 16 inches; so it is in the way. Mr. Alvarez pointed out that the gas company has been contacted regarding the possibility of relocating the meter, but the company has not responded. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that there is no reason to replace the grass with pea gravel, and noted there would be no problem if the gas meter were relocated. Commissioner Urrutia stated that it is relatively inexpensive to have the gas meter relocated. Chairman Gregory asked why it is so important to park the vehicle at the house when there are so many storage areas available with low monthly storage costs, to which Mr. Dunham replied that he has the nicest looking house on the street. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to approve the request, contingent on the applicant's ability to have the gas meter relocated so that the vehicle may be pushed back as far as possible on the side yard, and leaving the front lawn intact rather than being replaced with pea gravel. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Connor absent. 8 . �r.+� �"� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: MISC 98-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): D & F DEVELOPMENT, 46-333 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approvai of 17'6" high homes LOCATION: 74-525 & 74-515 Day Lily ZONE: PR Mr. Smith reported that the property is located on Day Lily, which is a cul de sac off of Deep Canyon. One issue is that the building height would exceed 15 feet. Mr. Drell met with some of the neighbors met and indicated that the neighbors should be invited to attend meetings wherein these lots are the subject of development; so the neighbors were contacted last week and are present in the audience today. Mr. Tirre of D & F Development stated that he is trying to build something compatible with the existing homes by using the same colors and materials. One home will be 2,091 square feet, and the other will be approximafely 2,300 square feet. The plans have been revised to lengthen the height of the roof to make the house appear larger. Chairman Gregory asked about the roof heights of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that there are a lot of hipped roofs in this neighborhood. Mark Wiseman, 74-550 Day Lily, noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood have two stories. Harold Armbrust, 74-510 Day Lily, stated that the square footage of the proposed development is smaller than the existing homes, and he believes that the proposed development will devalue the existing homes. 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES Mr. Smith pointed out that there are currently five vacant lots on the street, and this development involves two lots. Commissioner Holden noted that this Commission is only interested in aesthetics, not the size or value of a property. Mr Smith stated that if someone files an appeal to this Commission's decision, it will go before the City Council, but it would not be a noticed public hearing; however, if interested parties provide a written request for notification, as Mr. Shillito did, staff will see that those persons are contacted. Mr. Wiseman felt that the aesthetics of the plans do not match what currently exists in the neighborhood, to which Commissioner Holden replied that the Commission could require that the aesthetics more closely match that of the existing homes. Mr. Tirre indicated that he is willing for the Commission to decide what is architecturally satisfactory. Commissioner Holden asked if there is any way for the parties to mediate amongst themselves by adding bedrooms or guest houses to the proposed development, to which Mr. Tirre replied that it may be possible to do something with Lot 28. Chairman Gregory suggested that the roof materials be similar to those used in the rest of the neighborhood, that courtyards be added in the front yards, and that a landscaping plan be submitted to the Commission for approval, including front yards that will closely approximate those which exist in the neighborhood, and Commissioner Urrutia suggested that the project design incorporate hipped roofs. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate the Commission's suggestions. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Connor absent. Chairman Gregory suggested that the developer work with the homeowners on the issues over which the Commission has no authority. 10 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 10, 1998 MINUTES V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. � . STE E SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 11