The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-04-08 r � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES APRIL 8, 2003 *************************************************************************************�************* 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 7 0 Kristi Hanson X 5 2 Neil Lingle X 2 5 Richard O'Donnell X 6 1 Chris Van Vliet X 7 0 John Vuksic X 6 1 Ray Lopez X 7 0 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Franc�sco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 25, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of March 25, 2003. The motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining and Commissioners Lingle and O'Donnell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 . '�rr+r "�r�r�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-44 APPLICANT �ND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69-640 Sugarioaf Avenue, #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of approval for four awnings with signage. Cameron & Instant Cash LOCATION: 44-710 & 44-720 San Pablo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the ARC approved the request for awnings two weeks ago subject to elimination of the scallops. Ernie Brooks, Palms to Pines Canvas representative, was present and showed the Commission a sample of the proposed awning which has a slightly scalloped edge. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the only thing that makes it not look too bad is that it's so subtle that it's hard to see the scalloped edge. It almost looks like it's straight, which is what he would like. This is not a good compromise and feels that the edge should be straight. Mr. Brooks stated that his client wants it to look a little different from the other awnings. The neighboring building has a straight valance and he would like his to look different. Commissioner Hanson asked if the color would be different. Mr. Brooks stated that the color will be different. Commissioner Hanson stated that the buildings in that area look like they all belong together so some continuity is important. If he plans to change the color then he shouldn't change the detail. Mr. Brooks stated that the awning on the neighboring building has a valance that is loose. The next building over has a hard, straight valance. The proposed awning has an 8" valance. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioner Vuksic. It's such a subtle valance that it doesn't do any good to even have scallops. Mr. Brooks stated that his client would prefer to have a scalloped edge. Commissioner Lopez commented that he doesn't have a problem with the awning having cuts in it. It won't be that noticeable. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they're trying to make it look like it's straight, why not just make it straight? Commissioner Hanson commented that the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R030408.MIN 2 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2003 MINUTES scallops are "cutesy" and it's not a "cutesy" building. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred. Commissioner Gregory stated that he doesn't mind scallops. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would prefer a straight edge. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to re-affirm their previous action of March 25, 2003 approving the awning without scalloped edge. Motion carried 3-2-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez opposed and Commissioners Lingle and O'Donnell absent. 2. CASE NO.: TT 30738 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC, 68-936 Adelina Road, Cathedral City, CA 92234 MICHAEL A. PERONI, TKC, 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260-2590 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscape plans and elevations for new subdivision at the corner of Portola and Hovley Lane. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane. ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion of architecture and perimeter landscaping only (typicals and models are not approved.) Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and O'Donnell absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: THE FOUNTAINS, 2020 West Rudasill Road, Tucson, AZ 85704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture only for assisted living facility. LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive G:Planning\Donna Quaiver�wpdocs�Agmin�AR030408.MIN 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2003 MINUTES ZONE: PR-10 Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and O'Donnell absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 02-88 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74- 020 Alessandro, Suite C, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture and landscaping for new office building. LOCATION: San Pablo (north of San Gorgonio) ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners O'Donnell and Lingle absent. 5. CASE NO.: C 03-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PAT & OSCAR'S, 72-840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of revision of facade east of the existing tower element at Pat & Oscar's. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�P,R030408.MIN 4 �'` '`�rr+� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion for the project "as is" waiving the requirement to install the second tower. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioners Lingle and O'Donnell absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 03-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ART KOTZ, 73-260 Willow Street, Palm Desert, 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of chain link fence batting cage. LOCATION: 73-260 Willow Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the property is located on Grapevine and Desert Lily. It's a large lot on the southeast corner. A home has been built on the lot. It's now fenced and the perimeter is landscaped. The applicant has without approval or permit installed a batting cage for his children in the extreme northeast corner. Code Enforcement is involved and have begun the administrative process. We have received letters of objection from the neighbors, which have been distributed to the Commission for their review. The batting cage is installed 3' from the Grapevine property line and 1' from the east. The cage is currently 12' in height. The applicant proposes to move the structure 13' from the Grapevine property line and lower it to 10' in height. The municipal code for single family districts provides criteria for evaluating sports courts. This meets the definition of a sports court. The required street setback is 20'. The required side setback is 10', unless the facility is depressed below existing grade to the point where the fence would not exceed 6' in height. If the facility is depressed, then the side setback can be reduced to 5'. The applicant has been in contact with the neighbor to the east (Fedderly) who is expected to provide input. The Commission has received letters from Terry & Patricia Simmons on Joshua Tree, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030408.MIN 5 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2003 MINUTES Ray & Brenda Masuchi on Joshua Tree and Doug Brown on Joshua Tree. Another neighbor called from New York and was very much opposed to the batting cage. His concern was relative to the noise of the bat hitting a ball. The staff recommendation is to have the applicant meet code relative to setbacks and add landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was anything in the code regarding chain link skinned structures. Mr. Smith stated that this application applies to sports courts, whether it be racquetball, tennis, etc... It was anticipated that they would be chain link structures. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the code states that sports courts shall be screened. Mr. Smith commented that this is why staff is suggesting landscaping. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant should meet the code requirements. Mr. Smith commented that the surface is dirt so the applicant wouldn't have to remove concrete. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be possible to sink the structure without going to the extreme of putting in retaining walls. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has a large yard so it may be possible to lower it without installing retaining walls. Commissioner Gregory commented that he's seen other batting cages that interested parents have put up for their prospective athletic children. This one seems to be really heavy duty. A lot of times they're made out of a fabric material so that they're not so permanent. It's too bad that this person has already spent all this money, but it doesn't have to be built so strong. He asked if it were made as a temporary structure, would it have to conform to the same guidelines. Mr. Smith commented that the City doesn't recognize temporary versus permanent structures. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted clarification that if the structure meets code it can't be more than 6' above grade. Mr. Smith stated that if it's above 6' in height it's required to meet the side yard setback of 10'. If they depress the structure into the ground so that it's no higher than 6', then the setback may be reduced to 5'. Right now the structure is 1' from the side yard. The applicant is proposing to reduce the height of the structure to 10', therefore, the structure would have to be a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030408.MIN 6 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2003 MINUTES minimum of 10' from the side yard, 20' from the street property line and would have to be screened. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to deny the application as submitted and urged the applicant to return with a proposal that complies with code. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Lingle and O'Donnell absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030408.MIN �