Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-25 VOW CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES NOVEMBER 25, 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 19 3 Kristi Hanson X 19 3 Chris Van Vliet X 21 1 John Vuksic X 20 2 Ray Lopez X 20 2 Karen Oppenheim X 12 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 10, 2003 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of November 10, 2003. The motion carried 6-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-50 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VICTOR LEON, 72-758 Sierra Vista, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a combination garden/retaining wall with 8' overall height on a street side yard, 6' back from street curb face. LOCATION: 72-758 Sierra Vista ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is proposing a combination 2' high retaining wall plus a 6' high garden, slump block wall on top of it for an overall wall height of 8' on a corner lot. The purpose of the block wall is to replace an aging, existing wood fence. Staff is recommending an alternative design from what was proposed by the applicant. He sketched out a cross-section drawing, which was attached to the staff report. The wall would have a 2' high retaining wall being located 6' away from curb face with a setback of 4' before the remainder of 6' high slump block wall is constructed so as to create a planter between the retaining wall and the 6' high block wall to improve aesthetics. Commissioner Gregory asked if only 4' of block wall would be showing from the street. Mr. Urbina stated that the wall would still be 8' high but it would be offset 4'. With the modified suggestion, staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission deny the applicant's design, but approve staff's recommended alternative design and that the applicant be conditioned to landscape the planter between the retaining wall and the 6' high garden wall. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Urbina if he was comfortable with line-of-sight on the corner for traffic. Mr. Urbina commented that the proposed wall does not encroach within the 40' visibility at the triangle. Victor Leon, applicant, was present and thanked the commission for their time. One of the issues that he's dealing with is that he's directly across the street from a commercial parking lot. Photos were distributed for the commission to review to give them an idea of what he's faced with in terms of light pollution and noise pollution. Directly G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES across the street from the applicant's home is a garbage dumpster. Last week there was a car auction in the parking lot with over 100 cars and they had guys with microphones auctioning off the cars. They also had two double-height trucks with cars on top. Also, at night there is a lot of light pollution from the parking lot. There are no trees across the street along the wall in front of the applicant's house, but there are trees down the street that block the light and noise. There are new Macy's parking lot lights which glare into the backyard all night long. At the end of the street is the new Macy's addition with a large Macy's sign that's lit up at night. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Leon if he understands what staff had suggested. Mr. Leon commented that he had not seen the suggested revision. Commissioner Gregory stated that staff is suggesting bringing the wall back a little bit more from the 2' retaining wall to provide a tiered planter effect so that it's not so hard looking on the corner. Mr. Leon stated that he has existing landscaping, which he would like to keep instead of building the retaining wall. When he had originally talked to staff, they suggested the idea of the planter it had a 3' setback and now they're talking about a 4' setback. He was hoping that he might still be able to build the wall but keep the existing landscaping that he has rather than going to the additional expense of building a planter. The other issue is that the wall directly across the street is 8' in height. There's no planter or landscaping. The wall is the perimeter wall for the shopping center. Mr. Urbina stated that staff wanted the offset because in the future, Public Works may want to install a 6' wide sidewalk and we wouldn't want an 8' high wall at the rear of a sidewalk. Mr. Leon stated that this is why he wanted to keep as much of his landscaping as possible. He also suggested planting additional landscaping to hide the wall. Currently, there are red birds and Mexican bird of paradise planted in this area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was looking at the photographs to see if there were any large, old trees in this area but he didn't see anything like that. The picture of the wall across from the applicant's house doesn't help his argument because he's proposing to do something like that. Mr. Leon stated that he wants to hide it. Commissioner Vuksic commented that an 8' wall that close to the street is going to be obtrusive like the one across the street, which doesn't look very good. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR031125.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that one thing that the ARC always considers is the fact that landscaping is never a good alternative. If the applicant sells his house and the next owner decides that they don't like all that landscaping and rips it out, then we're left with an 8' wall. 8' walls in general next to a residential property are too tall. They're not in scale with the house and should be maintained more at a 6' height, which is a very standard height made for residential properties. Mr. Leon stated that his property is 2' above the level of the street. Commissioner Gregory commented that the current landscaping is almost all red birds of paradise, which grow very quickly. He asked the commission if there was a general consensus that an 8' wall as proposed by the applicant is okay or would the consensus be that it would be better to have a tiered wall. The commission agreed that a tiered wall is preferable. Staff has proposed a 4' setback and the applicant is requesting 3'. Does the commission have an opinion on that? Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would like to ask the landscape architects because it's going to make a substantial difference in the planter because almost a foot is going to be part of the lower retaining wall. Therefore, 4' of offset leaves a 3' planter. The applicant is asking to reduce that to a 2' net planter. He asked the landscape architects if that would make a difference in the ability to plant robust plants in this area. Commissioner Lopez commented that 3'will be tight for large plants. If you plant red birds in the planter, they're going to grow way beyond 4' wide. He asked the applicant where the lower retention wall will end on the northeast end. Mr. Leon stated that it'll tie into the existing slump block wall and he would like to add a gate for the gardener and pool service staff. He asked the commission for recommendations on plant material. Commissioner Gregory commented that this is typically something that the commission tries not to do because if they suggest a particular plant and for some reason it dies, then all of a sudden it's the commission's fault. He suggested speaking with the City's Landscape Manager. He felt that the 4' setback would work better to allow for landscaping that would screen the 6' wall. He asked what the standard setbacks would be for this home. Mr. Urbina stated that typically on a corner lot, a wall higher than 3'11" would have to be set back 12' from curb face, but this is a unique circumstance because the property line starts at 6' back from curb face because in the past the Public Works Department vacated some of the previous street right-of-way. Commissioner Gregory stated that in view of the applicant's extraordinarily poor view situation, the ARC would be willing to work with him. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of staff's recommendation showing a 6' high block wall with a separate 2' high retaining wall with additional landscaping in front of the wall with a 4' setback. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-51 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GEORGE BUONO, 44-275 Kings Canyon Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of new single family residence over 15' in height. LOCATION: 72-922 Grapevine Street ZONE: R-1, 20,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 03-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSh TIM BUENZLI, 463 Desert Falls Drive North, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a single family residence with roof height over 15'. LOCATION: 38-770 Desert Mirage Drive ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that the plans are on the table for the commission to review. Mr. Urbina commented that this was continued from the November 10, 2003 ARC meeting. The applicant has submitted revised elevations including the front elevation. The ARC had requested that the applicant attempt to lower the roof heights at the perimeter of the structure and the applicant has accomplished that. He has lowered the highest part of the roof from 18' to 1610". A roof plan was also submitted with a note that the applicant wishes to add a roof top observation deck with a spiral staircase going up to that. This is in G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES a Planned Residential zone. The zoning ordinance is ambiguous as to whether an observation deck is considered a second story. There is a wrought iron railing on the roof for the observation deck. Staff did receive a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east objecting to the proposed design on the following grounds: The neighbor doesn't like the proposed flat roof because he feels that it's out of character with the majority of homes in the area that have a sloping tile roof. In addition, he's also objecting to the proposed raised floor of 3' which is raised because the home will have a basement. The neighbor said in his letter that raising the finished floor of the house 3', then all the windows are raised higher than normal and therefore create a potential invasion of privacy. Tim Buenzli, applicant, was present and stated that there is a home in his neighborhood with a basement and has a raised finished floor. There's a home approximately five doors down that has a flat roof. He showed the commission photographs of the previously mentioned homes. He spoke to the neighbor who is going to be building to the west of him and he has no problems with the proposed plans. Another home has a flat roof on a portion of it with a 2' elevated finished floor. He's not proposing to do anything that hasn't already been done in the neighborhood. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant about the height in the basement. Mr. Buenzli stated that it will be 9' high. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the basement height is driving the fact that he wants to raise the floor level. Mr. Buenzli commented that he wants to add windows to the basement to let in natural light. He's been talking to the City for over a year about this and he didn't think there would be a problem about putting a basement in as long as he stayed under the appropriate roof height. The house right next door has been raised 2' and his house is right on the street. He's proposing raising his pad 30' from the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Buenzli if he didn't have a basement, would he build the house at the pad level? Mr. Buenzli commented that he could go either way, but he probably wouldn't raise it. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the applicant lower the floor of the basement more. Mr. Buenzli stated that he would prefer not to. Matt Gerhardt, proposed builder, commented that there's going to be a lot more of a call for basements with natural light. If you were to lower the basement floor, would the possibility of having natural light be eliminated. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this will not eliminate G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR031125.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES having natural light in the basement. He designs them and builds them quite often and he can't ever remember raising the floor because they have a basement. They build the main floor at the pad level and create light wells for the basement, sometimes quite large ones which is what the applicant can also do. It sounded like the applicant was saying that this is what he was already planning to do. Mr. Buenzli stated that he doesn't understand what the problem is when he's abiding by what he was told that he could do in the City. The roof height has been lowered to 17'. Part of the reason for the basement and raising the finished floor height is to get a better view, but it doesn't make that much difference. There's a mound in front of his view that he would at least be able to see over. He kept everything at or below 17'. Commissioner Gregory stated that Mr. Buenzli has exceeded some limitation somewhere, such as the roof height. If he didn't exceed the height limitation he might not have been before the ARC and everything would've gone right through. Mr. Buenzli thought that the process has begun because of objections from the neighbors because of Public Works saying that they would like permission from the neighbor to see what he thinks about it. Public Works suggested this because he wanted to raise the pad. Mr. Urbina stated that the pad height indicated on the project site plan does match that on the approved grading plan for the tract. Mr. Buenzli stated that Public Works didn't object but they wanted the neighbors to know that he was doing it and asked for a letter. The neighbor (Mr. Remus Haste) next door is 17'3" which is 3" higher than what he is proposing. Commissioner Gregory stated that he doesn't have a problem with what the applicant is proposing, except that he's pushing the edge of the envelope in many areas, which is what makes him uncomfortable. He suggested that the basement concept, as far as lowering the floor, would be a simple solution to taking care of his neighbor's concerns. Ramus Haste, neighbor, was present to address the commission. He submitted a letter to the commission stating his concerns with the proposed home. He lives next door. A correction needs to be made to the letter in that the finished floor height is 3', not 18". Continuity in the neighborhood is what he's after. He would like consistent, flowing design. They have pitched tile roofs and then suddenly there would be a very high flat roof. With the setbacks being 7' on each side, there's only a 15' span of space. That's a concern in terms of the architectural design of the house. Everything else in the neighborhood is pitched tile. Incidently, I don't really like to take issue with people but those G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES pictures that were circulated were from an adjacent development, which is Montecito and is a gated community. The proposed home is in an ungated community. The windows are going to be 3' higher than the normal window height in the neighborhood. Being a neighbor, they'll be looking down on me. Cars in the neighborhood, as they pass through, will see the change in elevation of the windows as well as the roof height, not to mention the rear of the home. This home butts up to the Desert Willow golf course and that change will be seen by the golfers. There is such a dramatic change so close to the traditional styling of the neighborhood. There are three vacant lots on the street which will potentially cause a chain reaction if they continue with the dramatic change in the neighborhood. There could potentially be three homes significantly different in style and look from the other homes on each side. Keep in mind that the other photos were from the development next door. Mr. Drell stated that these are custom lots and are not part of a planned community with no association. The City encourages diversity in architecture. Uniformity is something that we expect in a military base and is not something that's necessarily desirable in a custom home community. The difference is that you have a 14' high vertical wall instead of a 9' eave. Mr. Gerhardt stated that the lot prices have increased dramatically. The original houses have increased in value and now it requires a different type of home, which would possibly be a more upscale home. Some of the homes that are in this development have been improved dramatically and they do really look differently than some of the other homes that haven't been improved. There is a lot of upgrading that has been done. The new homes in the neighborhood won't be simple $350,000 homes. The new homes will be more expensive because of the prices of the lots. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the ARC does not dictate style. A flat- roofed home just by the way it's structure, has to be quite a bit higher than a pitched-roof home along the edge. The house is within the code requirement regardless of the floor height, but he's concerned about the precedent it sets to approve a house with a floor that allows it to look down into the neighbor's house. It seems like a really simple matter of digging a deeper hole for the basement. He would vote against the house being raised up as high as it is. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 8 Noe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was still unclear about how much of the entire pad was going to be raised. What happens in the rear? Where are all the steps? Mr. Buenzli stated that the rear will be raised 1 Y2'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant would be allowed to raise the pad 1'/2' above the approved pad height. Mr. Drell stated that typically we don't like to raise pad heights any higher than is necessary to achieve the engineering goal of draining the property. Increasing pad height purely for the goal of increasing views is typically not done. It's a judgement call but when we look at a tract we try to minimize grade differences between pads that aren't necessary or dictated by the natural terrain. Does the design of the house warrant a height limit above 15'? Commissioner Gregory stated that in terms of setting precedent, we've worked many a time with homes that were taller than 15'. We've worked with people mitigating that increased height by having them provide hip-type roofs on the sides. We have a home here where we don't have an aesthetic objection to it because it's whatever he wants to do, but because it has the flat roof and has 14' tall sides, that's pretty high compared to a pitched hip roof, which is at 9'. It exacerbates the harshness of this change. He suggested allowing the house to be approved as proposed except not raised. If they want to dig the basement out lower, then that's fine. There is also a concern, especially in this situation with the observation deck proposed on the roof. Mr. Haste commented that he's adamantly opposed to the observation deck and doesn't like the 1 '/2' elevation in the back. It's offensive and is not in accordance with the original design and plan of the neighborhood. Mr. Drell stated that technically any change over 6" between the pad height on the tentative map and the final map requires a re-hearing. Mr. Gerhardt commented on the observation deck. The deck faces the golf course and as long as they won't be able to observe their neighbors, what would be the impact on that? Commissioner Gregory stated that he felt uncomfortable with it. He wouldn't want his neighbor to have one looking down in his yard. Mr. Gerhardt agreed with Commissioner Gregory as far as impacting the neighbor. If it was on the side of the house to where you could see the neighbors, then he would totally agree. However, he thinks that this observation deck is located more in the center in the rear so that's not the case. Commissioner Gregory asked if any line of sight drawings have been done to show that it's not possible to look down on the neighbors. Mr. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Gerhardt stated that this has not been done. Mr. Drell stated that a roof deck is like a second floor and since this is a PR zone and this zone does allow two-story houses. Mr. Haste stated that after reviewing the plans, the deck looks like it's on the other side of the house which is next to a vacant lot and the owner is not present. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the ARC is going to start looking at the rear elevation and approve a roof deck on it, he's going to start looking with a much more scrutinizing eye. What he sees right now is a wrought iron picket railing on the roof of a building with a less than adequate building elevation. Mr. Gerhardt stated that there's a wrought iron fence in the rear yard. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's looking at the railing on the roof of a building, and not a very attractive elevation of a building. If this is allowed, then all of a sudden people will start building all these houses with picket railings on the roofs and roof decks all over the place, which is really scary. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he doesn't object to the house being higher than 15'. His concern is the floor height. The house would probably look better if it were taller than 15'. It would give him more opportunity for articulation. Commissioner Gregory stated that the ARC has made an effort in prior situations of this type to mitigate the increased height by having hipped roofs on the sides. Here we have a vertical house, which is different than the other houses in the neighborhood, which is fine but there should be some attempt to soften the impact. In this case, he doesn't feel that it should be higher than the maximum height. If it were a pitched roof house, then he would have a totally different perspective on it. The applicant should be able to design anything he wants, within reason. In this case, he's not objecting to the house design at all. Mr. Gerhardt commented that they've tried to break it up and now we're going to lower the roof height. It would look much better with a higher roof. It would look better with a higher element. We're just going to chop that element out and then the house is going to look all the same. Mr. Drell stated that he's not going to chop the element off. They're going to lower the floor 110". Mr. Gerhardt stated that they have the opportunity to lower the roof. Mr. Drell stated that they're not going to be exempt from architectural review by being under 18'. If they came in with a pure box, staff wouldn't approve it. They have the bare minimum amount of articulation in the roof line and if they eliminated it all, the GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 10 `*M01 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES home would be referred right back to the ARC saying that staff doesn't feel that they have enough articulation. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would rather say that the applicant needs to lower the floor by 1'10" and throw out the 15' height limit. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concerned about the resulting effect. If he wants to have 6' high ceilings, but he raises the floor 4' higher, then it gets confusing. If there's a very understandable limit, which in this case would be the maximum allowed anyway without a variance, it's easy. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that if the ARC gives the applicant a 15' roof height limit, he'll essentially lower the floor all the way down. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) maximum roof height of 15' with the understanding that the existing design remains the same, and (2) roof deck is not permitted. Motion carried 4-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic opposed and Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: SA 03-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument signs for Entrada del Paseo and wall sign for the new Palm Desert Visitor's Center. LOCATION: Highway 111 and west El Paseo ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 03-53 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOLORES VICTORIA GARVIN, 74- 923 Sheryl Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 7' block wall. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES LOCATION: 74-923 Sheryl Avenue ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 6. CASE NO.: PP 02-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 74- 020 Allesandro Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a two-story 32,910 square foot office/industrial building. LOCATION: Parcels 14 & 15 on Technology Drive near Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 7. CASE NO.: PP 01-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ART JORDAN, 6150 N. 16'h Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85016 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an office/industrial complex, UNIVERSITY COMMERCE CENTER. LOCATION: North side of Gerald Ford, east of College Business Park. ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0. GRIanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 12 fir✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: MISC 03-52 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GERARD MURPHY, 72-764 Arboleda, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 6' wall, 7' back from the curb face. LOCATION: 72-764 Arboleda Avenue ZONE: PCD Gerard Murphy, applicant, was present and stated that he spoke to his immediate neighbors about his request. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant made a slight modification to the site plan. Instead of the proposed 6' high wall being located 7' back from the curb face, he is now proposing to locate it 6' back from the curb face. This is in an area where there are no sidewalks. The zoning ordinance states that the typical minimum required setback for a 6' high wall would be 12' back from the curb face on a corner lot on the street side and 15' back from the front. On the application that the applicant filed, he really doesn't state a compelling reason why he wants a 6' wall so close to the curb face. The applicant is here because he's requesting an exception to the standard 12' setback from the side and 15' setback on the front. The zoning ordinance further states that in order for the Architectural Review Commission to grant an exception would be if the commission made a finding that unusual circumstances exist that make the literal interpretation and enforcement of the standards impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. In staff's opinion, the applicant has not provided a compelling reason why he should be allowed an exception to deviate from our standard setbacks. Staff has a concern that if this 6' setback were to be approved, it could set a precedent and it could affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated that Mark Greenwood was present to address this item. Mr. Greenwood stated that there has been a right-of-way abandonment similar to this case on Fairhaven, south of Fred Waring. In Public Works, they treat these requests on a case-by-case basis. If this was a major street in the middle of a neighborhood, Public Works may not allow it. However, in this case where it's at the back end of the neighborhood where the streets don't go anywhere it seems like it's a doable thing, as long as there aren't any utilities in this area. Public Works is willing to allow it. It takes about three months to vacate a right-of-way. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR031125.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet commented that if the ARC doesn't have good compelling reasons for the decreased setbacks then he would have a hard time approving it. He asked the applicant what the reasons are. Gerard Murphy, applicant, was present and stated that he doesn't want to put up a wall that's going to be an ugly eyesore in the neighborhood. His goal is to get as much area of the wall out as far as possible. Once he determines where he's going to put the wall, then the house will be completely remodeled. He intends to add onto the home, but first he wants to see what the City will allow him as far as perimeters for his wall. He apologized for an error on his site plan and commented that the wall will not be straight, as shown on the plan. The wall will be meandering. There's a 45-year-old Oregon pipe cactus on the property and he intends to build the wall around the cactus. He intends to add landscaping to the outside of the wall, but it may not be wide enough for what he wants to do. He wants to add some 36" box Mexican blue fans. He intends on using a panel system for the wall which will have electrical and water lines in the wall itself. He would like to add a waterfall on the outside of the wall for visual effect. Mr. Drell stated that there's a belief that for the same reason we have front yard setbacks for houses, there should be some openness between the street and significant structures. Commissioner Hanson commented that the applicant can't build his addition outside of his setbacks. Mr. Murphy stated that he would apply for a variance. Mr. Murphy stated that he's been listening to the commissioners and thought that it would be better if he didn't ask for a motion at this point. He wanted to revise his plans and agreed that the 6' setback is too tight and doesn't look right. He'd like to redesign the wall, taking his existing landscaping into consideration. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 6-0. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 03-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROB SHEARER, 8 Cholla Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof height of 17'6" on a single family home. LOCATION: 44-818 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-1 Rob Shearer, applicant, was present and commented that he didn't understand why he was before the ARC at all because the proposed home is within the height limitations. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the ARC has to approve any roof height above 15'. Mr. Urbina stated that the ARC needs justification as to why the roof was at the proposed pitch. Mr. Shearer commented that he's trying to get some ceiling height on the inside. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant has a nonconforming lot width, which is only 60' wide. When you take out 14' for the side yard setbacks, this results in a rather narrow house. In order to get some pitch, it probably affected the roof design. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 03-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL COLLIER, DELTA GROUPS, 5 Park Plaza, #1400, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 56-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent equipment cabinets within a 12' x 24', 15' high equipment building. LOCATION: 39-105 Portola Avenue ZONE: O.P. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for preliminary approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. G:PlanningTonnaQuaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 15 Noe **Ale ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 03-55 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BASH'S CLUBHOUSE, 74-450 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior color change. LOCATION: 74-450 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith introduced Joni Bash, applicant. Commissioner Gregory asked what the official objection is. Mr. Smith commented that it was not an objection, it was that the applicant did not obtain approval of an exterior color change. Mr. Drell stated that significant modifications to commercial building elevations require approval by the ARC. Color is a significant element of the exterior elevation. Commissioner Gregory spoke on Ms. Bash's behalf and asked why Staples is allowed to have pretty interesting colors and wondered why Bash's can't have similar bright colors. Mr. Drell stated that Staples has gone through the process and they're changing their colors. The issue now has to do with the relationship between RDA, Staples, the developer and the timing of when the color change is going to occur. Ms. Bash commented that she assumes that City is also dealing with Del Rio's, Captain Cook's, Tribal Connection, Banana's and Indian Wells Hair Salon. They've all done the same thing, probably for the very same reasons; recognition of a business. Instead of blending into the sand, they stand out in hopes of continuing with their business. For a long time this has been known as a conservative city. For many years, the demographics was geared more towards retired citizens and a much older median demographic than what we currently have. The colors that are coming out are more of a younger venue. We're year around and the people who are here year around working for what the old demographics used to be, don't necessarily oppose color as possibly it used to be opposed. She's been made aware that there have been a lot of complaints about her new building colors but she has letters saying that it's nice to see the change. She has signatures that say that they don't want the previous colors on the building. Some people have told her that even though they don't care for the colors, they're glad that she did something to the 40-year-old building that no longer looks like a 40-year-old building. She commented that she doesn't understand the problem. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that we don't oppose color. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's not necessarily opposed to the colors that the applicant chose, she felt that if they were on a more contemporary building they'd probably be very appropriate. However, in her opinion, it looks like a 40-year-old building that got a new paint job that doesn't apply to the architecture of the building itself. It just makes it loud. The stone doesn't go with the colors. It may help her business to have loud colors, but the ARC's job is to look at it in an aesthetic manner. The aesthetics aren't helped by the shape of the building, but she's generally not opposed to the colors. They're just not appropriate for that particular building. Ms. Bash stated that purple was the original color. The other colors were an adjustment. Commissioner Lopez stated that he grew up in Palm Desert and everybody knows where Bash's is. It's a neighborhood bar and they probably see the same people in there all the time. The building could be livened up, but the current colors are a little bright. Ms. Bash stated that the purple color is part of the history of the building. She asked the commission about a blend of the other colors which will work within the guidelines that she's not aware of. Commissioner Gregory stated that it's a subjective issue. Ms. Bash asked for suggestions from the commission. Commissioner Gregory suggested making the colors more subtle. If you like purple as one of the colors, have a version of purple that's more muted so that the building doesn't stand out so much. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there are a multitude of colors and color combinations. They just need some design expertise. Commissioner Hanson commented that for some reason the light in the desert intensifies colors and makes them look brighter. Commissioner Vuksic stated that bright colors can work when they have artistic merit to them. When it looks like something was painted for no other reason than to try to draw attention and wasn't done artistically and nothing was done to the building besides painting it, then it's not appropriate. Commissioner Gregory stated that someone who knows what they're doing could help out very easily. Commissioner Hanson has helped other people with the exterior color on their projects and it was suggested that she could possibly help out with Bash's. Mr. Drell stated that through our Facade Enhancement Program it is conceivable that the City could potentially contribute to at least half of the cost of what the original paint job cost. Commissioner Hanson agreed to help the applicant chose new colors for the exterior. G:PlanningTonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a revised color scheme. Motion carried 6-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031125.MIN 18