Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-24 . , ''`�r�►'' � ����-� CITY OF PALM DESERT ��� - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2006 **************************************************************************************************** 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 2 Kristi Hanson X 2 Chris Van Vliet X 2 John Vuksic X 2 Ray Lopez X 2 Karen Oppenheim X 2 Karel Lambell X 2 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 10, 2006 Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to approve the minutes of January 10, 2006. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None 1 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPYDER BUSINESS CENTER, LLC, 471 Old Newport Bivd., #301, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for a multi-tenant industrial project. LOCATION: 73-770 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 05-30 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELDORADO ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Nancy Creek, 74-320 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for exterior remodel in conjunction with the Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 74-320 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Urbina presented revised elevations for the commission to review. The changes are as follows: The architect added some blue tile to the rear elevation, where previously there was none. Canterra stone has been added to the bottom three columns. The ARC had previously expressed concern about dressing up the blank wall on the east elevation so there are now two 8' wide vertical bands of canterra stone in this location. The building will be repainted from the present white to a beige color. The three existing ficus trees in the front of the building will be taken out. The area underneath the overhang is where the proposed hallway corridor is proposed. There was some concern G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060124.MIN 2 . '�rrr+' `�r+` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES expressed at the last ARC meeting about the root structure of the trees, but the ficus trees will be replaced with ocotillo and desert landscaping. Commissioner Hanson commented that the 8' wide panels of canterra stone are arbitrary. Also, three feet of canterra stone should wrap around the base of the east elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there's good, easy potential to add more structure at the existing entry of the building to create a wider area where a sign could be incorporated for the existing business or any other future occupants that might be in that building. This would provide a remodel that's actually enhancing the building for years to come with its ability to be used by tenants in the future. It was suggested that they add a structure overhead connecting the two columns over the existing roof, which would break up the eave. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant is asking for participation from the City. Does the project warrant City expenditure? The City is looking for a longer term enhancement of the usefulness of the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that the north elevation has some type of detail, which shows that the architect recognized some time ago that it was helpful on that elevation. It needs something to break up a very plain elevation. When the trees are removed, the building is going to be very plain looking. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show (1) east elevation with 3' of canterra stone wainscot detail along base of wall and eliminate vertical canterra stripes, and (2) add area for signage at entrance that extends onto roof element on the south elevation. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: SA 05-166 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, 78-078 Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a monument sign for Chicago Freddie's. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN 3 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 24, 2006 MINUTES LOCATION: 74-450 Highway 111 (previously Bash's) ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant has returned with plans for the new monument sign, which was consistent with what the commission had suggested at the last meeting. The rooftop light displays have been removed. I've met with the applicant along with Diane Hollinger regarding landscaping. The landscaping currently consists of different types of gravel and several different types of trees. Ms. Hollinger had suggested that they make the landscaping more uniform and upgrade it. A landscape plan was submitted. The sign currently is not being lit, but the applicant stated that it will be illuminated when the restaurant opens. Mr. Stendell asked if the commission would like to have darker panels installed on the inside of the sign to make the white less bright. This was an issue at the last meeting. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that staff handle the brightness of the sign with something that will diffuse the white. Mr. Smith stated that this will be addressed by staff before final approval is given. Commissioner Gregory asked how the brightness of the sign would be monitored. Mr. Smith stated that there are maximum limits in the code and also the record will state that there was concern about the light intensity and we would ask them to bring it down. If the applicant chose to ignore us, then we would bring them back before the ARC and the commissioners would be asked to go out and look at the sign to determine whether it's offensive or not. If so, then we would take them through a Code Compliance hearing. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval, subject to diffusing the internal illumination through the white background of the plexiglass face of the monument sign, per staff approval. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 03-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GLASSTONE� INC.� 74-780 42nd Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN 4 • `'�rr�' `+�rrr�`' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JAN UARY 24, 2006 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for a new 19,867 square foot building. LOCATION: 74-780 42nd Avenue ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: PP 05-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KSC INC., KEN STENDELL, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for two new industrial buildings totaling 9,680 square feet. LOCATION: 73-750 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion, subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 6. CASE NO.: PP 03-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARES-REGIS GROUP, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of north retaining wall, car ports and streetscape at a 320-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 73-230 Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR060124.MIN 5 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Drell commented that in his opinion, the roof looks stupid. It looks like a hat over the buildings. Greg Albert, representative for Sares-Region Group, was present and stated that at the last meeting they presented three different options. There was an option where the roof didn't show and the consensus was that we didn't want to try and make it look hokey or look like a movie set. Mr. Drell stated that a mural on a wall wouldn't look hokey, but if you put a hat on the mural, then it will look hokey. Mr. Albert stated that at the last meeting, one issue was that we didn't show the commission anything that would make them understand what was happening on the end conditions. The current proposal shows what it will look like when driving down "A" Street. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they're showing pitched roofs, but they could all be flat. Mr. Albert stated that the only reason to use a flat roof would be if the commission thought it would be better to architecturally raise the mountain scene above the eave. If we're not going to do that, then I don't see what the advantage would be to change the roof design. We want to keep the look of the low-pitch, large overhang roofs because that's what you'll see around the whole property. It would look odd if just a couple of the areas had a flat roof and the rest was pitched. Commissioner Lambell stated that she felt that the current proposal was a huge improvement over the last one. The fact that nothing is rising above the roof line, it now becomes an artistic piece. This has met my concerns. Commissioner Gregory suggested eliminating the mural element in the sections between the units. Mr. Albert stated that he could do that without a problem. Commissioner Hanson stated her concern about the execution, which was made clear to the applicant at the last meeting. IYs a fun idea, but it still looks like you're trying to cover something. In my opinion, I'd rather see the portion that's the retaining wall, possibly add a veneered split-face block. The applicant stated that the whole project is Craftsman style and they have a lot of ledge-stone elements. That idea was proposed at one point, but it didn't make it past staff. Commissioner Hanson commented that she felt that the project should G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060124.MIN 6 . ' '�rr'` `�rM+i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES just be what it is and call it a retaining wall with some stone or some kind of texture on it. They could possibly add some windows to the backs of the garages and call it what it is. It's a building. You're going to have landscaping, which is going to break it up so they should just leave it at that. In my opinion, the mural doesn't make sense. Ms. Hollinger asked about the height of the proposed mural. Mr. Albert stated that it varies in height from 12' to 16'. Commissioner Gregory stated that if they were to add windows to the backs of the garages, they would allow light to come in. Mr. Smith stated that the one advantage that they have is that this is on a street that will see very few car movements, if any. Commissioner Gregory commented that he thought that the idea was fun. Commissioner Lopez concurred and added that it's not on a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Gregory stated that Commissioner Hanson was right when she said that it's all in the execution. If someone does a poor job of this, it'll be sad. If the job is well done, then everyone will be happy. Commissioner Hanson asked about the length of the section that would have the mural on it. Mr. Albert stated that it's about 320' in length. Ms. Hollinger commented that the landscape plan has not been approved. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the applicant did exactly what they were asked to do but while looking at the perspective, it seems like you could create a nice base on the wall and take down some of the height that they have in the building and articulate them to have some interest. They could add a few windows and then they would have a real building, instead of what would be an enormously long mural. The applicant stated that when they presented their original idea to staff that showed the retaining wall with ledge stone veneer the main comment that they received was that it looked like they were just covering up a wall, but they would still have a huge building on top. Commissioner Hanson stated that you have to be able to look at a drawing on paper and visualize it in reality. It's a building, so why not make it look like a building? G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN � . � 'rr�' `��+'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval, subject to the elimination of the mural element between the units. Motion carried 4-3 with Commissioners Van Vliet, Hanson and Vuksic opposed. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELLIOT LANDER, 16 Villaggio Place, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for a new two-story medical office building totaling 78,372 square feet. LOCATION: 73-650 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Elliot Lander, applicant, was present to describe the project to the commission. This is the second visit to ARC. When designing this building, we looked in a lot of areas in Southern California, especially San Diego and north San Diego County. We looked at about fifty different styles of buildings and finally chose one that's just like a building that's located right off Highway 15. My architect is from San Diego. This is a building thaYs often seen in areas like Temecula and north San Diego. There's not much of it in the valley yet here. We thought that it would be unique. It's not exactly like a lot of the buildings in the valley. We believe it's a beautiful product. We were before the ARC a couple of weeks ago and received some good suggestions. We tried to comply with them as well as we could. I'd like to enlist your help today to make sure that we made the changes and make sure if there are any others, we can all be on the same page. We created a sample showing some of the changes to see how it would look and it really didn't look as good. One of the suggestions was to address the X's on the elevations. A version of the facade was shown without the X's. These aren't something that's stuck on, but they're engraved into the concrete which creates additional expense to the developers. We feel that a building of this status would deserve that type of extra expense. Also, we did another version of the elevations without the corner G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN g � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES stones, but I think that the corner stones actually gives them some extra dimension and it looks very attractive. We inset the windows an extra 6" and there was also a request for considering some kind of trellis or shading. We looked at the building and ways to shade the windows properly. This is a very big building. It's 80,000 square feet with 88 windows. The last thing that we wanted was some kind of hokey-looking metal awning that people put on smaller stucco buildings to make them look more dressed up. There are small overhangs that are shaped like a baseball cap. They're made out of stucco and they're very attractive. They're smooth and they don't stick out. From a maintenance point of view, this would be a big difference to the developers because when we have 88 metal awnings, people on the inside could see how they're attached and there would be rust stains and they would have to come off and be painted and taken care of and washed all the time. Those are some of the features that we wanted to explain. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Lander exactly what he did change. It sounds like you tried everything, but didn't do any of them so what exactly did you do? Mr. Lander stated that they added the awnings, but they're not awnings. They're made of stucco. Commissioner Hanson asked how far they stick out. Mr. Lander stated that they stick out 14". The windows are inset one foot. The project architect, Timothy Bunch, stated that they added another color to the inset. The elevations without the X's and without the corner stones make it look more like the other buildings that we thought were not as attractive. It's looking a little bit more boxy. I don't believe that it looks like gingerbread to add a few of the X's if they're done in good taste. Commissioner Hanson commented that she drove by this building that's located off Highway 15. It's a very appropriate building for Irvine and Orange County, but I honestly do not think that it's appropriate for the desert. I am only one opinion, but that's how I feel about it. Mr. Lander stated that the intended use is professional/medical. It could be medical, realty, legal, architects or anybody who might want an upscale-appearing building. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have any problem with the forms of the building. You've done a really nice job with the massing. However, there's nothing about it that says desert. Everything about it says Orange County. We're not Orange County. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R060124.MIN 9 � yrrw` '�rY� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory commented that he recently drove around the city with a design team looking at local architecture. The thing that we noted and it came up in our presentation on the part of a city representative was the need for shade. I think that it might not be the corner stones or the eyebrows over the windows or pushing the glass in a few inches. The building might be appropriate where we don't have such an extreme climate. When it gets really hot here, which it does a lot, this building really doesn't provide relief from that even though the materials are modern, such as the type of glass you use. It would meet the Title 24 requirements, but the building doesn't offer passive shade mitigation. You don't have serious areas of shade relief. If you look at it from the perspective of a desert inhabitant, the building doesn't offer relief from sun. That's the big picture. Commissioner Hanson stated that it represents itself in the architecture, which was very apparent to me when I saw the building in real life is that it's very flat. My goal, even if it is a maintenance issue, a metal awning or a fabric awning allows a huge degree of shade and shadow that actually applies itself to the building, which makes it interesting and it provides a usable tool to shield you against the major sun element. When it's 120°, that's all you care about is finding shade. Mr. Lander asked what he could do to create shade that wouldn't look hokey and added on. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are many examples of awnings on EI Paseo. On the corner of San Pablo and Highway 111 the Norwalk furniture store has very simple, straight awnings made of fabric which last a long time. Mr. Lander stated that the location for this building gets high winds. Fabric would be tough. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they could use a different material. Commissioner Gregory suggested using an architectural approach if it's something that you could work in instead of resorting to fabric, can you use part of the building design? Mr. Lander asked if he could make the eyebrows more prominent. Commissioner Hanson stated that they way they show the eyebrows with a 14" projection, they wouldn't give anything any shadow. Mr. Lander asked how much would be enough. Commissioner Hanson stated that three feet would be the minimum. You have to figure out the sun angles that we deal with here. Summertime, the sun is immediately overhead, but in the wintertime we have very low angles. There is a way to figure that out. Where do you see coins on architecture out here? They just don't exist. Mr. Lander stated that everyone will be copying them in five years. Commissioner Hanson commented that this is what she wants to prevent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060124.MIN l� . ' �rrrw w�r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant and architect to explain the corner stones. Are they just painted on there? Mr. Bunch stated that they're flush on the building. Commissioner Lopez stated that he felt that the building looks good. The shading requirements are valid. I have seen other buildings in Palm Desert, like the one at the corner of Fred Waring and Highway 111 that has a lot of glass on it without shading. Commissioner Hanson stated that that's a bad example because they didn't build it right. Commissioner Gregory commented that the commission may not have a problem with the style, but it needs a serious revision regarding shade. Mr. Lander stated that he would like to do that. They can create some kind of covering. Mr. Bunch stated that they could probably only extend the eyebrows a foot and a half. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it has to work architecturally. You can't just add straight out from a window and solve the problem. You need to re- evaluate it. Commissioner Hanson stated that it has to make sense with the building. Mr. Lander asked Mr. Bunch if this would work with this style of building. Mr. Bunch stated that it will not work. Commissioner Hanson stated that if they wanted to change the style a little bit and get rid of some of the coins and simplify it, you could do something using an aluminum trellis that comes back and has blades in them so the air flow issues are taken away, yet when the sun is shining down it would provide shade. Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Lander what he's trying to achieve with this type of architecture. Mr. Lander stated that Mr. Bunch calls it Northern Italian. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they wouldn't do it that way in Northern Italy. They'd use big chunky stones on the corners that would stick out. Mr. Lander asked if they created awnings that were attractive, could everyone live with the rest of the building? Could the building be approved without major architectural changes? I love the building, but I don't think that adding awnings would destroy the appearance of it. If we start making a lot more changes, then we'll lose what I'm trying to create. Commissioner Lopez stated that there's no way you're going to be able to fit palm trees in the planter areas around the building. You might want to rethink places where you might see a tree going in to break things up. There are certain planter widths that are allowed for trees in G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR060124.MIN 1 1 • '� �' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES the city. Mr. Lander stated that he's working with his landscape architect, Ray Martin, on this project. Commissioner Hanson stated that she has a problem with the entry. They show a beautiful glass entry and then they have a wall that's right to the joint. You can never make that look good. You should have details like this figured out by now. That worries me because then I wonder how everything else will come out. You have to pay attention to the details. Mr. Lander stated that that can be fixed. Commissioner Lambell commented that we're trying not to have tilt-up buildings with no personality. I hope you understand that we're trying to have an enhanced personality, other than coins that are flat and X's that are etched in tilt-up panels. What we're trying to do is have you come up with something that reads even remotely as interesting as your parking structure does, which shows shade, convenience and it's showing what we're looking for. Here you have something that has a shade issue that we're concerned about and your building is a standard Orange County tilt-up building. That's where we're drawing the line. I'm not saying that the style is wrong. I'm not saying that the awnings are not going to be a good idea. It's just another tilt-up building and we are adamantly opposed to letting that sneak through because we're letting 6" of window come out with another 14" overhang eyebrow. We're sending it back to you to come up with some way that we can provide the shade and give this building some personality. Commissioner Hanson asked about the exterior colors. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant deleted the Swiss Coffee color because it was too light. Commissioner Hanson stated that the proposed lightest color will still be too light. Mr. Lander asked if he took off the coins and added trellises, would this be a building that could be approved? Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it depends on what it looks like. You have to bring it back to the commission for further review. Commissioner Lambell stated that she doesn't mind the coins if they're part of the building and make a statement. To have them etched into the tilt-up panel is not a coin, as far as I'm concerned. Commissioner Gregory commented that they should imagine a building that you would want to be in in Tuscany during a heat wave. Commissioner Gregory stated that they shouldn't take the comment with respect to the landscape area lightly because that can really hurt you if you have to take away parking spaces in order to make areas for trees. Be very careful with that. If you just have a fringe of landscaping G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060124.MIN 12 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES around the building and there's insufficient room to plant trees, you might find yourself losing some parking spaces. Mr. Lander stated that he has provided for plenty of parking so he's happy to comply with the landscape issues. Mr. Lander commented that he wants to bring back what the commission wants. You want trellises, awnings... Commissioner Gregory stated that he shouldn't go that way. I don't think that the goal of this group is to say that we want trellises. I think that the goal of the group is to say that you're in the desert and provide a structure which accommodates the desert conditions showing a serious effort working with shade. Commissioner Hanson stated that the commission's goal is not to dictate exactly what you should do, that's why you hire an architect. We're here to give you direction. Mr. Lander asked Mr. Bunch if he could provide what the commission is asking. Mr. Bunch stated that he wants to be off the project. Mr. Lander stated that Mr. Bunch feels very much like this is what he believes in, but we'll find some kind of alternative. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise the elevations to create a building that better fits into the desert environment. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: RV 06-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GEORGE BOAL, 76-739 Oklahoma, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of screening of RV at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 76-739 Oklahoma ZONE: R-1 Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant is a property owner who lives in Palm Desert Country Club on Oklahoma Avenue. He's been parking his RV here for the past eighteen years. Eighteen years ago he obtained a permit from the Riverside County Building & Safety G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN 13 ' �wr, �rr+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES Department to construct a carport over the RV. The area was annexed into the city in 1994. The applicant is requesting approval to continue to park his RV in front of his house. His proposal for screening is to add five pots of artificial ficus plants in them that are approximately 8' high. The RV is about 9'4" high. The west side doesn't show any screening because he typically parks his Suburban there. The RV is not there during the summer months when he's on vacation. The applicant submitted three letters from neighbors immediately adjacent in support of the RV parking. We did receive a letter from a gentleman on Tennessee Avenue objecting to the method of proposed screening of the RV. Someone called Code Compliance and complained about the RV. George Boal, applicant, was present and stated that he doesn't know who the complaintant is although another person parks their RV at the corner and came over to my house and wondered why I could have mine parked there and he can't do the same. He parks too close to the corner or parks in somebody elses driveway. I'm willing to do anything that has to be done to comply with the ordinance. I've already spent almost $1,000. for the artificial plants. The fact that I'm 80 years old, I won't be driving it very much longer. It's going to be gone in a couple of years. The 30-year-old RV is smaller than most RV's. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was possible to build some type of wall to screen the RV. The current proposal looks like a band-aid. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would be a difficult task because the RV sticks out so much. It's nearly impossible to screen it there. I don't think that the trellis helps and it may even draw attention to it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we've had similar submittals before where they proposed plants in pots with wheels. Mr. Smith stated that the City Council ended up approving that particular plan. Mr. Drell stated that the live plants have all died in that case, whereas, this proposal is for artificial plants. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this looks like a landscape project thaYs underway. It doesn't look like it belongs there. Mr. Drell stated that the screening should look more attractive than the RV. Mr. Boal suggested cutting the artificial trees in half so that they can go right up against the side of the RV on the side. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was anybody in the audience who wished to speak. Eva Weber, neighbor, was present but she stated that she didn't have an opinion one way or the other, but just wanted to see the outcome. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN 14 ' • �` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was another place to park the RV on the property. Mr. Boal stated that he doesn't have a wide enough side yard and his house is on the golf course with a pool in the back. The fact that Emerald Desert RV park is closing, it's going to be really hard to find a place to store the RV in Palm Desert and it'll be very expensive. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be possible to park the RV parallel to the face of the house. Mr. Boal stated that there wouldn't be enough room. Commissioner Lambell asked if the RV parking issue would be grandfathered in since it was approved in the county and then the City of Palm Desert annexed this area. Mr. Smith stated that Palm Desert inherited the carport because it had a permit, however, a permit was never issued for the RV. Commissioner Vuksic asked if this might be a question for the City attorney because the carport was approved with the understanding that it would cover an RV. Mr. Smith presumed that Code Compliance already had that discussion and concluded that they needed a current permit. If you want to refer it back and bring it back to the commission at the next meeting, we can do that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is the only way that he could possibly see it being approved. Otherwise it would set a precedence. Mr. Urbina commented that at the time of the annexation, there was paperwork that an existing RV owner could file with the City to attempt to get grandfathered in, but if that wasn't done then you're not grandfathered. Mr. Boal did not complete the paperwork and it was never filed. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the commission tried to find a way to make this acceptable and we've had many very similar to it and unfortunately we've had to deny them. It's very difficult to do this in a front yard and have it be aesthetically acceptable. Unfortunately, we have to deny this one to be consistent. Commissioner Gregory explained that this is an aesthetic review board and that's what we look at. The last one was turned down, but was overruled by the City Council. From our perspective, we look at what kind of precedent would this set? This can be appealed to the City Council or the applicant can contact the City Attorney. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to deny the request because it was determined that the RV could not be adequately screened while parked in the driveway. 7-0 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN 1$ - ' ' �;, ,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: RV 05-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANTOINETTE M. PAIAZZOLA, 42- 841 Christian Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store two RV's and a work trailer at a single-family residence. LOCATION: 42-841 Christian Street ZONE: R1 Antoinette Paiazzola, applicant, was present and stated that the request is to screen one RV. The other RV should be moved to another location in the near future. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant was before the ARC at their last meeting and has returned with revised plans. Mr. Bagato stated that the ARC had requested a revised plan that was dimensioned, which the applicant has provided. The commission also asked to see the gate details. Ms. Paiazzola is planning to replace the existing wood fence with a block wall, as well as a courtyard wall across the front. She's included three different types of gates to choose from. There are color samples for the exterior of the home. Ms. Paiazzola asked the commission their opinion on the block wall color. Commissioner Hanson suggested that it be stuccoed and painted to match the house. Mr. Bagato stated that with the changes, he would recommend approval. Ms. Paiazzola commented that she has questions about the property lines and will have the property reassessed. Commissioner Hanson suggested that she contact a surveyor. Commissioner Lopez asked if anyone had a problem with the large mass of grey concrete. Commissioner Gregory felt that something more clever could be designed. It could be interlocking pavers or stamped concrete. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was room to put a planter next to the garage. Ms. Paiazzola stated that there is a planter in this area that will remain. The commission suggested that the applicant contact a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060124.MIN 16 _ • • . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 MINUTES subcontractor for interlocking paver or an acceptable enhanced concrete. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there is a lot of concrete, even if it's enhanced and it looks like there's some opportunity to add some planter area along the garage because the lot gets wider as it goes back. Ms. Paiazzola commented that she has bougainvillea in this area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this would be fine then. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) using enhanced paving in the driveway, per staff approval, and (2) that the owner confirm the property line prior to doing the work. 7-0 VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR060124.MIN 1�