Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-10 � T �t' +�v / •� CITY OF PALM DESERT _� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2004 **************************************************************************************************** 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 3 Kristi Hanson X 3 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 3 Ray Lopez X 3 Karen Oppenheim X 3 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: JANUARY 27, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of January 27, 2004. The motion carried 6-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ' , �,` �° ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: C 04-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: ROBERT DEL GAGNON, 73-612 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: New addition to existing business and removal of existing freestanding sign. LOCATION: 73-612 Highway 111; Desert Map &Aerial Photo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-05 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS� ARTHUR R. IPPOLITO, 77-015 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of reduce the minimum setback from 20' to 16'. LOCATION: 77-015 California Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Drell stated that the ARC talked about this case previously but they needed some detail. The applicant is going to reproduce the gable element across the front of the house. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was a variance requested on the wall. Mr. Drell stated that the wall is in the right spot, but the carport is at 20', which the ARC has the authority to approve. The anomaly is the support for the carport requires an exception. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he thought that it was okay. Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Hanson if the change that she made was implemented and asked if she felt comfortable with the current plans. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the applicant notch the beam 3". The applicant, Arthur Ippolito, was present. Mr. Drell had suggested using exposed trusses. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin�AR040210.AG 2 ' ' � '�; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES Commissioners Vuksic and Van Vliet concurred. Mr. Ippolito stated that he would like to add a raised stucco design on all three supports. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STEPHEN R. NIETO, 78120 Calle Estado, Suite 206, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 37% lot coverage for an addition and remodel of a single-family residence. LOCATION: 74-064 Aster Drive ZONE: R1- 9,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 04-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BELLINI RESTAURANT, 73-111 EI Paseo, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage. LOCATION: 73-111 EI Paseo, Suite 106; Bellini Restaurant ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the case at the applicant's request. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040210.AG 3 , , �MI�'�` '�% ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MCCALLUM THEATRE, c/o PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72-624 EI Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument signs with two marquees on the NE corner of Fred Waring and Monterey. LOCATION: 73-000 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: P Mr. Smith stated that the tallest peak of the signage is approximately 10' high and is 60' back from the street. The material is smooth plaster. Commissioner Hanson commented that the main portion of the sign should be made of granite so that it matches the outside of the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there would be another sign at the main entrance to the theater or just at this one location. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the signage will be just on the corner. He agreed that the granite would set off the center piece and the material would be extremely appropriate for the forms and the whole idea of having shards bursting out of the ground. The signage will be placed on the existing grade, which is a knoll that goes up about 5'. Commissioner Hanson asked if the sign will be lit from behind or if lights will shine up on it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're actually N screens with an LED system. Commissioner Hanson asked if they were bullet-proof or bat-proof. Mr. Smith suggested putting a plexi-glass face on the front of the screens to protect them from vandalism. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the signs because they're better than the billboards on the side of the building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he had a real concern about the signage and what he actually proposed at first was to shine images up on the face of the sign, but it doesn't work during the daytime. What his client came up with, which is a very interesting idea, was to sepia the screens so that it's not like you're watching a TV or even a black and white film, but something that's like an old Western photograph that's browned. The only time that they would use color would be for something that required color such as a certain performance where color is important. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR040210.AG 4 , . �` `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to the center piece being granite. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 04-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DON KRAMER, 72-835 Gloriana Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of detached accessory structure in rear yard. LOCATION: 72-835 Gloriana Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 7. CASE NO.: CUP 04-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� NEXTEL WIRELESS, JIM LEE, 1590 Miliken Avenue, Unit H, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval to construct a 75' high wireless telecommunications monopine and an equipment shelter. LOCATION: 76-055 Country Club Drive; SCE Substation (Concha) ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 8. CASE NO.: PP 03-12, CUP 03-13, CZ 03-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR040210.AG 5 . , `�'` �„r1I� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of architecture for a single story office building. LOCATION: 73-271 Fred Waring ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 04-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� DANIEL GILMOND, 1075 San Jacinto Way, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 15'9" roof height on a portion of a single-family home. LOCATION: 73-543 Juniper Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the dwelling can be as high as 18'. It was approved at 15'. Mr. Bagato showed the commission photographs of the home. The plans show 15' from the finished floor and it should've been checked from grade. It shows 15'6" and it was actually built 3" above what it was approved for. It's a total of 15'9" in height, but it's about 15' from the property line. Commissioner Vuksic asked for ciarification of the approved height. Mr. Bagato stated that the plans show 15' from the finished floor so it was actually approved at 15'6". The 15'9" area is just a small portion of the house. There was a complaint by an anonymous person so a building inspector measured the area in question and it turned out to be higher than approved. Mr. Drell stated that it's a technicality. Anything over 15' has to be approved by the ARC. Commissioner Gregory stated that he lives behind this property and will abstain from the motion. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin�,4R040210.AG 6 . . ,'�r� ;,,�% ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 10. CASE NO.: MISC 04-09 �,PPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROCCO ANTHONY DILUCCHIO, 73- 432 Sunny Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a manufactured home. LOCATION: 73-432 Sunny Trail ZONE; R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is requesting to add a manufactured home on a one-acre lot that will serve as a guest house and facility for the tennis court. Photographs of the actual unit were shown to the commission for their review. The home will be 45' from one property line and 16' from another and the pad is lower than the street so it'll be almost, if not totally, invisible. The other homes in the area all have asphalt shingled roofs. Mr. Drell commented that it's State law that manufactured homes will be dealt with in exactly the same way as a stick-built house. The same design review issues that we would apply to a stick-built house would apply to a manufactured house. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the ARC wouldn't review a stick- built house. Mr. Smith stated that we weren't sure of the roof height and didn't have sufficient plans. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was any other criteria with respect to the house fitting in with the neighborhood. Mr. Drell stated that they wouldn't address this any more than they would address a stick-built house. The fact that iYs manufactured is not a criteria that you would use. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the existing main house and wanted to know what year it was built. Mr. Dilucchio stated that it was built in 1966. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it was disappointing to see totally different architecture on the same piece of property. The existing house has really nice 60's architecture and to bring in a manufactured home almost devalues the property. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR040210.AG � . . �i�+r'` �` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson asked if they have the ability to plaster the exterior. Wood siding is not typical for the desert. Mr. Smith stated that it will be plastered and add a trellis. Commissioner Hanson commented that if they plaster it, it will blend in a lot better. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there aren't any overhangs. The contractor stated that the photos show the manufactured home in shipping condition so the eaves aren't shown. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the rear elevation of the guest house that fronts the neighbors property. Mr. Dilucchio stated that it will have 18" overhangs. Mr. Drell stated that it will have the same amount of detailing that a typical house would have. The applicant's contractor commented that when he puts the stucco on, they can add a lot of aesthetic blending with the original house. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he hears him saying that but he doesn't see anything. All he sees is a picture of a manufactured house. He wouldn't be too happy if that went in next to his house. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the issues that the ARC would typically look at with the addition of a guest house was how does it tie into the existing house. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is on the agenda because it's something that's an anomaly. The ARG is looking for certain factors which are not submitted yet and for the ARC's comfort in making an approval, it would be helpful if they had something that clearly indicated what they're looking for, such as showing the roof and how the overhang would work, showing how the stucco would be handled, showing how the windows are handled. It's only because it has been called up and the fact that it's a modular home is not significant. Instead of having the applicant saying that they will do certain things, they would like to actually see representation on paper of what they will be approving. Commissioner Hanson commented that she would like to see pictures of the existing house to see how the materials are going to blend. Commissioner Gregory stated that they would like to feel comfortable that they're doing everything they can to make the house appropriate for that neighborhood as far as what they would normally be looking for, regardless of whether it was made in a factory or not. The ARC would like to see plans or photos showing the additional pieces of architecture (overhangs, stucco, trellis, etc...). The applicant agreed to return with a presentable drawing and site plan. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with plans showing stucco siding, overhangs, trellis, site plan and pictures of the existing house. Motion carried 6-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR040210.AG 8 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMM�SSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES 11. CASE NO.: DP 12-79 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): S.A. MIRO for SEARS, 4582 S. Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 1501, Denver, Colorado, 80237 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of exterior remodef of Sears Tire, Battery and Auto Center. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111, Westfield Shoppingtown ZONE: PC-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MBH ARCHITECTS, 1115 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of signage and storefront remodel. Old Navy LOCATION: Desert Crossing, 72-349 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-01, C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, c/o Larry Kosmont, 601 Figueroa Street, Suite 3550, Los Angeles, CA 90017 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040210.AG 9 � , �; � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Renovation of existing Palm Desert Country Club clubhouse; development of 95 single-family homes on portions of existing 200-acre golf course. LOCATION: Palm Desert Country Club ZONE: OS Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Lopez left the meeting at this time. Mr. Smith stated that there are no plans for the clubhouse. The applicant has indicated that they will be re-painting the facility and they will submit color chips at a later date. The development plans for 95 single-family homes are available for the ARC to review. The homes would be developed on portions of the existing golf course and/or driving range. That portion of the application needs a change of zone request through the Planning Commission and the City Council. What we're currently dealing with are the landscape plans for those units and the parking lot around the clubhouse facility. The ARC shall also review the architecture for the various plans that would go on the 95 lots. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the roof tile. Mr. Larry Kosmont stated that they will be concrete tile which would simulate a true clay tile. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it looks thin and wasn't sure what the material was. He asked for clarification on the fascias which have rafter tails, but some are solid. Mr. Kosmont stated that this is typical of this type of architecture. In some cases there will be a break with a detail which is demonstrated on Plan 4 with a scalloped detail. This is an accent detail thaYs part of the stucco itself. There will be three elevations per plan. Some will have exposed rafter tails and others will have stucco detail. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there would be any wood fascia boards on any of the houses. Mr. Kosmont stated that there will be wood fascia boards in some cases. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the type of windows that will be used. Mr. Kosmont stated that they will have vinyl windows. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the walls will be 2 x 6. Mr. Kosmont stated that the exterior walls could possibly by 2 x 6. There will be some depth between the relationship between the walls and windows on the front elevations to create a shadow line. The interior walls will be 2 x 4 construction. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the exterior walls, the ARC consistently asks the applicant to add some relief with the nail-on windows so that the window isn't flush with the exterior of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040210.AG 1� . , � ,'�ri►q ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES the wall. He also asked about the location of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Kosmont stated that the equipment will be on the exterior of the home with nothing on the roof. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the tops of the chimneys. Mr. Kosmont stated that there will be surrounds around the chimneys, in terms of some type of stucco band and roof shelter over the caps of the chimney with tile or metal shroud. There will not be any exposed spark arresters. Commissioner Hanson commented that in Plan 1 in bedroom #2 in every elevation the applicant has indicated what appears to be high windows above some lower windows and wanted to know if they were real windows. Mr. Kosmont stated that they are real windows. Commissioner Hanson added that on the front elevations, on Plan 1, the walls should be thick for a deep shadow line ( a minimum of 12"). Commissioner Vuksic stated that it depends on the detail. If iYs an entire room with a window in the front, it needs to be recessed more than 12". Mr. Kosmont stated that in most cases they have clusters of small windows. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on the setbacks. The units are 45' wide and the lots are typically 55' wide. He asked if 5' side yard setbacks are typical for the area. Mr. Drell stated that the county standards are 5'. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that this will be tight with the condenser units in the side yards. Mr. Drell stated that you can't put a condenser in the side yard. The Fire Marshall is asking for 5' of clear area in the side yards. The condensers will have to be put in the rear yard. Commissioner Van Vliet concurred with Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson in stating that the applicant should carry the architecture all the way around the building so that the sides and rear elevations still look good. Commissioner Hanson commented that the new homes will be a nice improvement to the area. Rob Parker, representative for RGA Landscape Design, was present and stated that they're minimizing the use of lawn in the front yards and lots with shallow front yard setbacks would have no lawn at all. On the outside cul-de-sac lots, they would like a possibility to get some lawn in those areas to soften the appearance while working in accordance with the City's water use standards, as well as the selection of plant material. The only place that will be different will be on the corner lot configurations where there will be a series of shrubs and vines, as opposed to trees. There will be a side yard setback of 5' on the perimeter wall on the street side. There is still an opportunity for the homeowner to add landscaping inside the wall. Mr. Drell stated that we try to apply the City's typical standards to projects such as this, it may be pushing the envelope. Mr. Parker stated that he didn't see a problem pulling the wall in. It just minimizes the actual space on the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�AR040210.AG 11 ' ' 4"� �rr" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES interior of the lot. If iYs acceptable to place the wall at the 7' minimum because of the narrow width of the lots, it would give the homeowner a useable side yard. Mr. Drell stated that typically the corner lots are a little bit wider because of the expectation of having two frontages. Mr. Parker stated that the rationale for the landscaping for the clubhouse is two-fold. One is the reconfiguration to a certain degree of the existing parking lot. The other idea is to enhance the appearance of the clubhouse from New York Avenue and California Drive. They are planning to re-landscape all of the parking areas and the perimeters so that they are within the City's water use standards. They're not doing anything to the back portion. Some modifications still have to be made to the size of the planters in the parking lot. The challenge is that the front of the building is heavily shaded. Spencer Knight encouraged the developer and architectural staff to consider looking at using some kind of alternative soil type around the trees in order to ensure the success of the trees. The present planter size that the City requires is still minimal. It's recommended that they use structural soil. It has produced good results in other cities such as Palo Alto and areas on the east coast. IYs an alternative that we're looking at using here in Palm Desert because we have such adverse climates in parking lots because of the heat so it's a major problem. This is a suggestion and if the applicant doesn't want to do it, iYs not something that the City can require. Palm Desert Country Club has existing mature trees on site. Mr. Knight commented that he's going to be interested, as the City arborist, in having the trees reviewed for health. Then the question will be asked if they actually have to be cut down. We don't have a lot of mature trees in the valley and they're an asset here. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he wanted to make a specific comment on the walls. In the rear, there are covered, outdoor areas and where they don't have those to create shadow, those walls should be a minimum of 12" thick, as well as on street side yards. Anything that's in clear public view should be a minimum of 12" thick. Ehud Raize, resident of Palm Desert Country Club, was present. He wanted to show the commission pictures of what's in front of his home and some of the neighboring houses. He bought his home there in 1988 and decided to move there because they like the area. They didn't want to live in cluster homes. He's opposed to the project. He's concerned about the mature trees in the area that might be affected by the new development. There's nothing modern about the homes in his neighborhood, but they're very nice homes. There's a certain density in the area, which is inherent in the development of the golf course. When G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R040210.AG 12 . , �1r� �` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES they bought homes in the area, they all assumed that this is the density that they're going to be living in. He doesn't know where the actual property lines for the new homes will be relative to his home, but they look like they're going to be between 150'-180'. His views are going to disappear. The homes will be 17'-18' in height and they're not what they want there. They also don't want cluster homes. This is not progress in any way. If the developers wish to develop homes, there's plenty of land in the Coachella Valley where they can develop and profit and if they still wish to invest in the country club, then that's fine. However, putting up cluster homes that are totally out of character with the rest of the older homes in the area is atrocious and totally out of character with what's there. We shouldn't be asked to lose what we have for the sake of financial gain. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the setbacks on the existing homes. Lisa Theodoratus, Palm Desert Country Club resident, was present and stated that she wasn't completely sure but thought that the front setbacks were 20', rear setbacks were 15' and the side setbacks are a minimum of 16' combined with a 5' minimum on one side. Also, all of the lots in the area are a minimum of 6,000 square feet and go up to approximately 9,500 square feet. The proposed new lots would be about 4,700 square feet per lot. She presented pictures of the front of her house and also the view from her backyard. Mr. Kosmont stated that the proposed setbacks are the same as those in the HOA CC & R's, except for the front on the cluster, but they're the same on the sides and back. Ms. Theodoratus stated that if they look at the CC & R's for the Palm Desert Country Club they would see that they're different. She did not have a copy of the CC & R's with her. She showed the commission photos of the lot line for a proposed new home and a picture of a gentleman on another lot line. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they were getting into an area thaYs not appropriate for the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that they address the commission on architectural/design issues. Ms. Theodoratus stated that the reason that she's showing the commission the photos is because she's opposed to the 18' roof lines and also the side yard setbacks that are being requested. The existing homes in this area have 13' high roof lines. This is representative of every home that's in the area of the cluster homes. Mr. Kosmont stated that the proposed homes are not cluster homes. They're typical production homes on conventional lots. Cluster homes are defined as homes clustered together with open spaces between them. These are not cluster homes. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R040210.AG 13 . , � ,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Raize commented that the reason why they refer to them as cluster homes is because Mr. Kosmont referred to them as cluster homes. A map was displayed for the commission that showed the location of the new lots. Mr. Frank Stoles stated that the red represents the lots that were eliminated. The lots were eliminated because of either landscape, mature trees, elevations, visual impairment, etc... After discussions with hundreds of inembers of the neighborhood, the new site plan was devised. There are 1,880 homes in the Palm Desert Country Clubs with a huge amount of variety in the roof heights and setbacks. This is a neighborhood that's evolved over a period of time so there are many different styles of houses. It's really hard to capture any one theme or any one height. If you look at the homeowner's rules, they're very inconsistent. They were hoping to bring well positioned, single-family, single-story homes that do the least in obstructing and impairing the quality of life there. A good architectural style home was designed in a size that makes sense. Most of the proposed homes are 1,800 square feet. These are at the upper end of that neighborhood in terms of size. They've tried to fit them into the character of the neighborhood, recognizing that we're also appealing to a newer-type buyer who wants some of the amenities of great rooms and higher ceilings. This is a different prospective on how people live now versus how houses were designed and sold in the 60's and 70's. They're trying to bring forward a moderate, attractive, well-designed and appropriately sized house. They're all single-family lots and they've tried to achieve the same character of the current neighborhood even though that character is defined over spans of years with lots of variation, which is not easy to do. As you may know as well, that in addition to having these homes they provide the vehicle to have them come back and re-do the 27-hole golf course in a significant way. IYs a mixed project in the sense that it's a recreation and residential project. The homes are meant to be priced very moderately in the market place because they would like the public to like them and buy them quickly so they can turn around and invest in the golf course and rebuild the golf course and clubhouse that desperately need some re-invigoration. It's a neighborhood improvement strategy that they think meets the market standards of the neighborhood. It pushes the envelope just a little bit, which is healthy and also brings back the ability to make dramatic, obvious and consistent changes in both the appearance and ongoing operation of the golf course. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the architect to address the roof heights and show where the peaks are at 18' and certain heights are 15'. Frank Stoles, architect, stated that the maximum height on any ridge line on any home does not exceed 18'. From there, they have varying elements: On Plan 1, one element is 17'6" - 18'. Adjacent to that are G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040210.AG 14 � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES components that are typically 9' - 13'. There's a variation in heights. There isn't a consistent height of 18' that runs across from one end of the house to the other. That example is consistent with all the floor plans. On Plan 2, the element that is the highest point is the entry. They're defining the entry and trying to make a statement, which is very typical of a lot of product that they do in the desert. Along with that, there are other components that flank this in terms of lower elements. That proportion creates an attractive home. Typically, the average height of these homes might be closer to 14', but there are components that are 17'6". Mr. Raize asked where the measurements were taken from. Mr. Drell stated that they're supposed to be taken from the finished pad. Basically, you add 6" to the height from the floor. The requirement of 18' is always from the finished dirt. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the finished floor is typically 6" above the finished pad. Mr. Drell commented that the ARC has discretion between 15' and 18' roof heights. Mr. Stoles stated that when he develops the plans, he assured the commission that they won't be higher than 18'. Mr. Smith stated that the tower on Plan 4 is 19' high so it'll be coming down slightly with the rest of it at 14'6". Commissioner Vuksic commented that he wasn't clear about the side yards. He asked if the 5' side yards is the City ordinance or the CC & R's for the development. Mr. Stoles commented that it should be City ordinance. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the CC & R's for the development are more stringent than that. Mr. Stoles stated that he wasn't aware of that. Mr. Kosmont stated that they tried to follow what was out there in the existing homes. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they might want to do some good research on that. The ARC looks at setbacks as they relate to height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he saw pictures where all the houses look pretty much the same and he's heard descriptions of how the area has been developed over decades and the houses are varying heights and styles. However, that's not what he saw in the pictures and he wanted to know what was missing. Mr. Kosmont commented that he thought that the pictures were centered around the clubhouse area. If you go west, you'll see newer homes that are more like the proposed home style. Mr. Raize stated that to compare these to homes that are 3/4 of a mile away is pointless. Mr. Kosmont stated that it's the same neighborhood. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to make one comment to the people who are in opposition. She understands their point, but if they brought their house plans in today, they wouldn't get approved. If they tried to bring their homes in today as they exist right now, the ARC probably would not approve them. Ms. Theodoratus asked what that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR040210.AG 15 . . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES would be based on. Commissioner Hanson stated that the houses lack architecture, detail, interest. They're very plain, ordinary and they're not what they're looking for. Mr. Raize stated that this is precisely why some people bought these homes. They like that old architecture. Commissioner Hanson stated that he can like it but the ARC would not approve it. Mr. Raize commented that he would not be bringing those plans through today. Jerome Pineau, resident of Palm Desert Country Club, was present and stated that he lives on California Drive. He asked if it was a concern of the ARC when a developer wishes to bring Spanish-style homes into a neighborhood that's predominantly mid-century modern, or 60's style. He asked if it was a concern that there's a clash between the two styles of architecture. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they do consider different styles. It's important that the new houses blend in to a certain degree. There is a mass of homes in the proposed project. It's not like they're adding one here and one there. They intend to add quite a mass of new homes in one area. It is important that they blend with their surroundings to a certain degree, but how much is difficult to say. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he felt that this is important as well. This is why he asked the question about the history of the neighborhood and what's really in there overall. Art Ippolito, resident of Palm Desert Country Club, was present and stated that he feels that it's very important for the new homes to have similar architecture as the rest of the neighborhood. The old homes are being redone and the City is making them look really good. They're making them pleasing to the eye. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that simple can be pleasing too sometimes. Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't know how much the commissioners have driven through this area, but hopes that with the potential influx of new product there that it will encourage homeowners to increase their property value by updating their homes and adding some interest and adding some architecture that is greatly lacking and fixing the problems that exist out there, which is equipment on the roofs, chain-link fences and other issues that are there. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he didn't feel that they had enough of the details regarding roof heights to grant preliminary approval. Mr. Smith stated that he saw one tower element which was over the height limit, which was on Plan 4. It'll have to come down slightly in order to meet code. That would be accomplished as part of the working drawings. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he was still G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040210.AG 16 . . �,r � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MINUTES concerned about the 5' side yard setbacks. Mr. Drell commented that the county standards are still 5' and 5'. Whether the CC & R's require more than that, then they have a problem with the CC & R's. Ms. Theodoratus commented that the CC & R's for the area will not allow the lot size that's required here nor will they allow the setbacks on any of the designs that have been presented here. Commissioner Hanson stated that this is something that can be brought up with the Planning Commission. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for preliminary approval subject to (1) having no exposed spark arresters on chimneys, (2) add thickness (12" minimum" to the front elevations for a deep shadow line, (3) carry architectural detailing around all sides of the buildings, (4) size of planters in parking lot to be brought up to City standards, and (5) review health of existing mature trees and Landscape Manager will access whether or not they should be removed. Motion carried 4-0-2-0 with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040210.AG l�