Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-11 � . �` �rr► � �`•��'� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � ' MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was cailed to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 3 0 Kristi Hanson X 3 0 Neil Lingle X 2 1(mt.rescue) Richard O'Donnell X 3 0 Chris Van Vliet X 3 0 John Vuksic X 3 0 Ray Lopez X 3 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 28, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of January 28, 2003. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 s �" ''�tir�'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: ROBERT ACEVEDO, 73-850 Highway 111, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Chispas Frutas & Raspados LOCATION: 73-850 Highway 111, Suite A ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. 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 business signage and awnings for Pat & Oscar's. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion subject to signage being limited to two menu items. Motion carried 6-0-0-1. 3. CASE NO.: SA 03-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� LEISUREMAX, INC., 72-680 Dinah Shore Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030211.MIN 2 ♦ �r `�� ` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business signage. Leisuremax LOCATION: 72-680 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith stated that Leisuremax is located on Dinah Shore Drive near Costco in the Lighthouse Center. Mr. Drell stated that the sign will be a little smaller than what is shown in the diagram. The entire sign cannot exceed 87 square feet and it's actually 97 square feet in the diagram. The sign will be 10% smaller. The issue with the menu items reading "PatioSpas-BBQ's-Billiards" is that the applicant wants three menu items and code limits him to two menu items. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that there is no detail showing how the sign will be attached to the building. Mr. Drell stated that they will be channel letters with no raceway. The blue behind "Leisure" is going to be opaque. The words "Max" and "Live Better" will consist of front lit channel letters. Jim Cross, representative from Best Signs, was present and stated that the blue area around "Leisure" is solid metal. The word "Leisure" is 1" thick acrylic push-through so that "Leisure" will light up green and "Max" will light up blue. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how far the signage will project from the wall. Mr. Cross stated that he needs enough space to house the transformers and electrical material, therefore, it will typically project 8" from the wall. The raceway will be on the inside of the wall. There's no visible raceway. The letters will be flush to the wall. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the menu items. Mr. Cross stated that they will be individual lit channel letters. He feels that it's necessary to light these so that they're visible. Commissioner Hanson stated that typically the Commission does not like to see a lot of inenu items, however, people may not know what Leisuremax is so she can understand the reason to have more information in the signage. The applicant has used the architecture and is doing it appropriately. Commissioner Van Vliet did not have a problem with three menu items in the signage. G:PlanninglDonna Quaiverlwpdocs�AgminWR030211.MIN 3 . � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the length and height of the letters of the "Leisuremax" sign. Mr. Cross stated the sign length on the east elevation is 27'. The "i" in "Leisure" will be approximately 40" in height. Mr. Drell stated that the letters will actually be 10% smaller. Mr. Cross stated that the actual height of the lower case letters will be approximately 33" in height. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about the size of the letters on the "Light House" sign. Mr. Cross stated that they're approximately 18" in height. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the signage is extraordinarily large for the facade that it's going on. He feels that it's a nice sign, but really feels that it's oversized. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant come back with revised plans that show details of the signs and also a scale drawing. Commissioner Hanson stated that she feels that this sign can be approved, but the applicant will have to make it smaller. Mr. Cross stated that when the sign is reduced 10% it will be approximately 3' smaller. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if the sign were reduced, even beyond 10%, there will still be a lot of impact from the sign. It really won't reduce visibility from a marketing standpoint. Commissioner Vuksic asked if "Live Better" lights up. Mr. Drell stated that everything is illuminated with the exception of the opaque blue behind "Leisure". Mr. Drell asked Mr. Cross if he could halo light the menu items. Mr. Cross stated that he could do that. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was concerned about the height of the sign. When the sign is reduced, it needs to come down a little bit. The bottom of the letters could be in the same spot. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the bottom of the sign could be where the "X" swoosh is located. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to 1) 15% size reduction of east and north signs, 2) halo lit menu items, and 3) no lighting on "Live Better" portion of signage. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Lingle absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030211.MIN 4 . . � `�rr+r ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ALVARO & MARCIELA GUTIERREZ, 74-733 Merle Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport. LOCATION: 74-733 Merle Drive ZONE: R-1 Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant was going to use an overlapped flashing cap on the carport and if it was going to be painted. The applicant stated that they will use a flashing cap and will paint the carport to match the house. Commissioner Gregory asked about the left side of the carport when facing the street and asked if they intend to park a golf cart or a very small car on the curved part of the driveway. He didn't feel that a car could turn into this part of the driveway. The applicant stated that he could make the driveway straight. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is just a suggestion because it looks nice as a curved driveway. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the whole driveway could be shifted over, which would allow for more planting area. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to 1) driveway being adjusted so that it's straight and not curved, 2) remove existing concrete driveway to allow for landscaping, 3) paint metal cap brown, 4) paint fascia brown to match the house, and 5) paint beam and posts tan to match house. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 03-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, P.O. Box 3958, Palm Desert, CA 92261 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030211.MIN 5 � �r `�rrr'' ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a preschool facility consisting of three buildings, open space and tot lot. LOCATION: 42"d Avenue, Hovley Garden Apartments ZONE: PR-5 This request was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHERI HUNSBERGER, 74-378 Myrsine Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 9' tall play structure in rear yard of single family residence. LOCATION: 74-378 Myrsine Avenue ZONE: R-1 (9,000) Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� STEPHEN R. NIETO, 78-120 Calle Estado, Suite 206, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 37% lot coverage. LOCATION: 76-527 California Drive ZONE: R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030211.MIN 6 , + �� � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lingle absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:58 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:PlanninglDonna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030211.MIN � , , '�"' '�rr� �'��-��\ CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • -' MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2003 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was calied to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 2 0 Kristi Hanson X 2 0 Neil Lingle X 2 0 Richard O'Donnell X 2 0 Chris Van Vliet X 2 0 John Vuksic X 2 0 Ray Lopez X 2 0 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 14, 2003 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve the minutes of January 14, 2003. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 28, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: SPRING ORIENTAL RUGS, 73-850 Highway 111, Unit F, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of neon signs in storefront windows. Spring Oriental Rugs LOCATION: 73-850 Highway 111, Unit F ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that staff recommends denial of the accent neon tubing around the perimeter of the window and the neon signs in the window. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the sign clutter was not acceptable. There is also glare from the neon. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the neon is too garish. He asked staff to check into the additional signage that is existing. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to deny the request due to excessive sign clutter, glare and the neon tubing creates a garish appearance. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 03-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS for KLAFF REALTY, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of three (3) monument signs. LOCATION: 73-411 Highway 111, northwest corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo. EI Paseo Square ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030128.MIN 2 . , �rw'' '�,yr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 AGENDA Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO.: SA 02-220 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BRUCE R. BAUMANN, DDS, 44-239 Monterey Ave, Palm Desert, CA 92260 SIGNS BY MEL, Mel Wachs, 41-841 Beacon Hill, Suite D, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of plans for monument sign and wall sign for dental office. LOCATION: 44-239 Monterey Avenue ZONE: OP Mel Wachs, Signs by Mel, was present to represent the applicant. The applicant would prefer not to remove the wall sign, which was a condition of the Architectural Review Commission action of January 14, 2003. Mr. Wachs stated that the applicant brought to his attention that there are other businesses in the area that have both a wall sign and a monument sign. He wondered why other businesses were allowed to have both signs and he was limited to only one. Also, the damage that's done to the wall when lettering is removed is hard to patch properly. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there was a discussion at the previous ARC meeting about the need for both signs and a lot of discussion about having one or the other. He wanted to know if the client was aware of these discussions. Mr. Wachs stated that the applicant was sent the notices, but didn't look into the matter until after the meeting when he discovered that other businesses on the same street have a monument and a wall sign. He would like to have two signs. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the space for the wall sign and monument sign is limited, compared to the other businesses on the street. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the wall sign is particularly big. Mr. Wachs stated that iYs 19 square feet with the first line being G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin1AR030128.MIN 3 . , �+ `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 28, 2003 AGENDA 14'9" in length, the second line is 7' in length with a 2' logo. The letter heights are 10" and 8". The wall is blue and the letters are silver so that it doesn't pop out that much and blends into the wall. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that having both signs would make it look cluttered. There is a very close proximity between the two signs, as opposed to the other businesses with two signs. Commissioner Hanson noted that one of the examples of the signage for a different business has some architectural character which represents the building, whereas the proposed monument sign does not. She asked Mr. Wachs if there was a way to light the sign from below. Mr. Wachs stated that currently there are no lights on the sign, but he could add lighting. Commissioner Hanson stated that the blue building stands out during the day, but some lighting could help in the evening. Mr. Wachs stated that the problem is at night but also during the day there are a lot of trees and bushes that obstruct the view of the signage coming from the south. The applicant wanted to know if Walgreens was shown favoritism because they're a bigger company. Mr. Wachs was told that Walgreens is a much larger building and they're allowed more signage. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he really likes the wall sign and never did like the idea of adding a monument sign. Mr. Smith asked if the lettering on the monument could be done in the same fashion as the wall sign. Mr. Wachs stated that the letter style would be duplicated exactly. The monument is illuminated, but the letters are small. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that it's unlikely that the dentist will do much evening work. Mr. Wachs stated that other doctors have illuminated signs. Mr. Smith stated that one monument sign per street frontage is allowed. In this instance, there is one street frontage on one lot so they're allowed one freestanding sign. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission's concern is based on aesthetics and not on what other businesses have done. It's difficult to rationalize why the Commission is making a decision against the request just because somebody else has a similar type of situation. The reason why the Commission voted the way they did is because of the concern of sign clutter. The monument sign doesn't seem to fit there. Mr. Wachs suggested using the same style lettering and bring in the wall color to the monument sign. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030128.MIN 4 �� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 AGENDA Commissioner Hanson concurred with Commissioner O'Donnell. The examples of other businesses on the street aren't relevant. She never approved any of them. In any of those cases, if the business owners had come to the ARC to request both a monument sign and a wall sign they probably would've said no. The Commission tends to err on a more aesthetic look as opposed to having a bunch of signs. If the issue is the landscaping that's blocking the wall sign they should trim it or move the trees around. Landscaping is easy to fix and there are a lot of options available. Adding another sign doesn't always fix the problem. Mr. Wachs stated that the sign is flat on the face of the building and a lot of people could miss it. Commissioner Hanson commented that people who are going to the dentist typically have an appointment and generally know where they're going. Dr. Baumann has a very bright blue building, which is hard to miss along that street. Mr. Wachs stated that the sign at A.G. Edwards has a dentist listed on it. Commissioner Hanson stated that this was a monument sign for A.G. Edwards that allowed for one other tenant and it just happened to be a dentist. Commissioner Lingle stated that he questions the need for a monument sign. Perhaps there could be some type of architectural element added to the monument sign so that we could reach an adequate compromise. He understands that Dr. Baumann might feel slighted, but he has no doubt in his mind where Dr. Baumann's office is. It isn't an issue. Typically, people who go to the dentist know where they're going. The sign on the building is very nice. He would be inclined to vote against the request and ask the applicant to come back with something thaYs attractive and creative. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the reason why the monument sign was approved at the last meeting was because they knew that the building sign was coming down. They would have never approved both signs at that stage. Mr. Wachs stated that there has to be a design change that would further bring about more of a connection befinreen the sign and the building. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred with Commissioner Lingle. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant should also explore what can be done with the landscaping to help with the visibility of the signage in general. They may find that they don't need to put up a monument sign. They could also light the wall sign from below. Mr. Wachs stated that Dr. Baumann thought that a lot of his patient's haven't been able to find his office. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR030128.MIN $ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to reaffirm the previous action (approval of the sign option showing the sign with a base height of 16", subject to removal of the wall mounted signage). Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioner Vuksic and Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�• BEST SIGNS, INC., 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of signage for Cellar poor Thrift Shop, St. Margaret's Church LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion subject to signage being on raceway mounted behind wall. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: C 01-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI• LYLE-HALL, LLC, 721 S. Palm Canyon, #216, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for an 18,079 square foot, two-story office building, CANYON FINANCIAL PLAZA LOCATION: 77-990 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP The Commission required that the roof mounted equipment be mounted between the trusses and not on the roof deck. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030128.MIN 6 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to roof mounted equipment being located within the roof structure (below roof deck). Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. 6. CASE NO.: C 03-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• WESTFIELD CORPORATION, 72- 840 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of final working drawings for exterior modifications for Pat & Oscar's. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion, not including awnings or signage. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: TT 29468 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONEBRIDGE PALM DESERT, LLC, Michael Prock, 3525 Lomita Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of elevations for model homes for single family residential tract (127 lots). LOCATION: 39-100 Tamarisk Row; east side of Tamarisk Row Drive north of Country Club Drive. ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that one of the conditions of approval on this project was that the applicant consult with the homeowner's associations to the west (Regency Palms and Regency Estates). Mr. Alan Levine was G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR030128.MIN � . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 MINUTES present and stated that he has a letter from Regency Palms. He spoke with Regency Estates this morning and they stated that they have no problems with the project and would send a letter to confirm this. Commissioner Hanson commented that the applicant did a great job with being able to put furniture and T.V.'s in the rooms. Most people do a really bad job at it. The front of the houses look great, however, most people live in the back of the house. She suggested that the pillars for the patio covers on the rear elevations be thickened and add the same detail around them that they have on the front elevations, whether it's foam detail or stone. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it looks like there are no roof overhangs on the front elevations, but the roof plan shows an overhang. Commissioner Hanson stated that the front entry areas and garages don't have an overhang. The headers are stucco trim. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the majority of home sites have 5' and 5' side yard setbacks. Michael Prock was present representing Stonebridge and stated that he has a new site plan, which he distributed to the Commission. The garages won't be any closer than 20' from curb. The side yard setbacks should be 14' total. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it looks like every other home has a 5' and 5' side yard setback, but it's hard to tell because there are no dimensions on the site plan. Commissioner Hanson suggested putting the larger side yard on the garage side so people could use it for storage. Mr. Prock stated that he will make adjustments to the site plan lot by lot. Commissioner Hanson commented that it would be nice to vary the front yard setbacks a little bit so that they're not all in line at 20'. Commissioners O'Donnell and Van Vliet concurred. Commissioner Hanson stated that the front yard setbacks should be measured from the garage door. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't see chimneys on all the houses. The plans only show one side of a chimney on some of the houses and it looks really narrow. Mr. Prock stated that they are using a direct vent system. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the houses look so nice and he hopes that they will frame the chimneys so that they don't look like minimal stud frame shafts. Mr. Prock stated that it's a simple direct vent system so there is no chimney. They aren't wood burning fireplaces. The gas fireplaces have a roof jack, similar to one that would be used for plumbing for a water heater. Commissioner Vuksic stated that people driving by on Tamarisk Row Drive are going G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030128.MIN g . �„ �' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 MINUTES to see the top portion of the houses, therefore, he would like to see the columns thicker on the rear elevations. On Plan 3, the side of the chimney should have a larger dimension so that it doesn't look too small. Mr. Prock stated that they have not plotted the entire community because he thought that the Commission would be concerned about repetition and getting a good unit mix. He still has to do a precise plan, phase by phase. He is only going to release the four model homes and 13-14 production houses for construction. He would like to the come back to the ARC with the precise plan for 16 houses and wondered if that would be acceptable. The Commission agreed with this request and expressed concern regarding the visibility of the chimney vents. Commissioner Hanson stated that the plumbing vents tend to be closer down to the spring point of the roof and trees tend to screen them. The chimney vent is probably going to be located much higher on the roof, therefore, much more visible. The architect needs to look at the code and determine how high they have to be on the roof. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval subject to (1) increasing the size of columns and adding stone to columns on rear elevations, (2) vary front setbacks 20'-24' from garage, (3) vary sideyard setbacks on all home sties, and (4) increase chimney size. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-02 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS): ALBERT HERNANDEZ, 74-785 Garry Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of an exception to roof height of a single family residence at 16'6". LOCATION: 43-680 Buena Circle ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR030128.MIN 9 � . „ � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 2003 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEN STEMMER, 74-290 De Anza Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of an exception to roof height of 16' and approval of architectural elevations for a single family dwelling. LOCATION: 74-290 De Anza Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is requesting a 16' high roof on a single family residence. The height seems to be in keeping with the neighborhood. Staff has concerns regarding the front elevation facing the street. There is a three car garage with an attached guest house. Material samples were shown to the Commission. Don Gordon was present on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was a reason why the garage doors have to face the front. Mr. Gordon stated that the applicant wanted a big backyard for his children. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding a side loaded garage. The Commission was concerned about how the front elevation looks. The Commission made several suggestions to address the concerns, including adding a side entry garage noting there was adequate land to achieve the side entry garage. Mr. Gordon agreed to present the proposed changes to the applicant and his architect. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request as the Commission had concerns with having the street elevation having three garages facing the street. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:38 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR030128.MIN l�