Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-25 ��•�� CITY F PAL M LM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 13 2 Chris Van Vliet X 14 1 John Vuksic X 14 1 Karel Lambell X 15 Pam Touschner X 12 3 Allan Levin X 9 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 28, 2009 & April 28, 2009 (revised) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the July 28, 2009 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Levin abstaining. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the April 28, 2009 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion carried 4-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner abstaining. ARCHITECTURAL REVh!W COMMISSION *400 MINUTES August 25, 2009 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: RV 09-360 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JULIO CRUZ, 73110 Guadalupe Avenue, palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV (utility trailer) in the front yard. LOCATION: 73-110 Guadalupe Avenue ZONE: R-2 (7) Mr. Swartz presented this project and stated that this is an approval to park a utility trailer in the front yard. The utility trailer is 9' in height and will only be stored at this residence on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. The applicant uses the utility trailer on the weekends for the COD street faire and is stored in La Quinta for the remainder of the week. The trailer is covered and has rose bushes and trees near it for screening and landscape. He stated that the applicant could push the trailer back, but the roof slopes down and the applicant would have to cut into the roof in order to get it on the side yard. The applicant is trying to keep his costs down and the side yard is not the area he would like for this to go, but if it means keeping the trailer on his lot, then he will do that. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that a notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. Mr. Julio Cruz, applicant stated that he is trying to get approval for the trailer so he can get a business license. He explained that he uses the trailer to haul stuff because he is a vendor at the College of the Desert (COD) street faire and uses the trailer Friday, Saturday and Sunday only. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if during the days on Friday, Saturday and Sunday he had the trailer at COD and Mr. Cruz stated that was correct. Commissioner Lambell asked why it couldn't stay in La Quinta the entire week. Mr. Cruz said that the water he sells at COD is delivered to his home so that it is loaded and ready for the weekend. GAPIanningWanineJudy\Word ResW Minutes\200TAR090825min.doc Page 2 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION `"s� MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Gregory said this is a tough one, it's a very small trailer and pulled way back and not permanently parked. This is hardly the equivalent of a giant airstream trailer or a 13' tall boat, however the ordinance states that it be adequately screened from the street. Commissioner Vuksic stated that every once in a while they get a utility trailer which are flat beds, a darker color, and only 4' high or less and those don't seem very noticeable. He stated that it appears the applicant takes good care of his trailer, however the cover makes it look like it is stored there. Mr. Cruz stated that he just purchased the cover and that it matches his neighbor's house. Mr. Swartz said that the actual trailer is orange in color. Commissioner Lambell wanted to clarify that the trailer was only there Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights and then it goes back to La Quinta for the rest of the week. She felt that the cover was better than the orange; however she pointed out that it is not adequately screened as the ordinance requires. Commissioner Gregory said if this is only occasionally parked and the neighbors don't have a problem with it, and it is quite small he thought they could make a provision to check back in a year with the condition that it must be adequately screened as required in the ordinance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it looks a lot better than having a recreational vehicle (RV) parked out there, but it is not screened at all. He thought that by approving the trailer it would open up a Pandora's Box then someone would bring in a picture saying the Commission approved this. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is a way to screen it that would meet with the Commission's approval. Mr. Swartz stated that there is plenty of room on the side of the house for it to be pushed back, but the roof slopes down and suggested that the applicant consider cutting the eave off. Commissioner Lambell asked Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager of Code Compliance if the applicant could get a permit to park his trailer on the street for 72 hours. Mr. Ponder said that this is a commercial trailer and not a RV and thought that the intent of the Recreational Vehicle ordinance is for RVs and not trailers of a commercial nature. Since the applicant is bringing the trailer home and storing things for his business he thought the applicant should have a Home Occupational Permit (HOP) because it impacts his home. Commissioner Lambell asked if a HOP is the same as a business license. Commissioner Levin stated they are two separate permits. Mr. Ponder said that a business license is for tax purposes and the HOP permit is a process that allows you have your business in a GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090825min.doc Page 3 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVI`'(EN COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 residential home. Commissioner Lambell asked Mr. Cruz if he was aware of both of these permits. Mr. Cruz said that he was only aware of the business license. Commissioner Levin asked if he was operating his business out of his home and Mr. Cruz answered that he was not. He stated that he was only storing waters there for the COD street faire and not selling anything from his home. Commissioner Levin thought that the applicant didn't qualify for the HOP. Mr. Ponder said that anytime you are bringing products home relating to your business and stored there then you are using a residential area for commercial purposes; which would be storage. Commissioner Vuksic asked if anyone with a HOP would be allowed to store things like that at their house. Mr. Ponder stated that you go through a process with Planning and then an inspector goes out and takes a look at it. The inspector then will determine how that would be addressed based on a lot of issues and impacts. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development said that it is approved much like a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with conditions of approval attached. Commissioner Touschner mentioned that if the applicant is not able to get a HOP then this request would not need to be approved. Commissioner Vuksic said that other applicants have come here with trailers that are used for business purposes and park them at their home and wondered how that is different. Commissioner Gregory made a motion to approve it to be parked at the resident on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings only on the condition that the applicant receives a business license and a HOP worked out in advance. This would be a special situation as opposed to if it were a RV. Commissioner Lambell felt this was a compromise that would work. She also stated that it wouldn't work if it were orange and suggested that the cover remains on the trailer. Commissioner Touschner seconded the motion. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic said that he understands that the applicant is trying to run his business, but the fact is that he is storing a really big object in the front of his house. He doesn't like the precedent that it sets even if it's just for the weekend. Commissioner Van Vliet said that he can't support it because of the lack of screening which goes against the ordinance. Commissioner Vuksic expressed that it is probably even more visible then it appears in the photos. He said that the Commission has always had a really hard time with RVs stored in the front of a house because there is no effective way to screen them, even if you landscape in front of them because it just doesn't look natural. He didn't know what else to suggest other than trying to get it into GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVA MinutesTOWAR090825min.doc Page 4 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RE EW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 the side yard of the house. Mr. Cruz stated that he is on really on a tight budget and cannot remodel the roof at this time. He said that he would be able to do it in a couple of months once business picks up. Commissioner Lambell said that she would have a much different attitude about it if it was there seven days a week and if someone comes in the Commission can say that he is only parking it there Friday, Saturday and Sunday night only. It is not there during the day at any time. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission could conditionally approve this for a short time and asked if they could continue it for 90 days and then take a look at it. Ms. Aylaian stated that they are presenting to the City Council this week a moratorium on approving the screening of RVs and if this request has not been approved as of the date that the moratorium is declared, he won't be able to get it approved until or unless the ordinance is revised and comes back to this Commission for consideration. She asked the applicant what he is proposing to do in 90 days. Mr. Cruz said that he would be cutting the eave back so that he can pull his trailer back into the side yard of the house. The Commission discussed cutting the eave back and Commissioner Van Vliet asked how much it would have to be cut back. Mr. Cruz said about two feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it wasn't just a matter of pushing it back; he would also have to put a gate in front of it. Mr. Cruz stated that he is planning on putting a gate there as well. Commissioner Touschner said that if you can't get the HOP then this whole issue goes away and felt they were trying to come up with solutions before they know. Ms. Grisa said there is no reason why the HOP would be denied; it is a trailer that should be screened which is up to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The applicant isn't conducting business at that location and is just parking the trailer there three nights a week. Ms. Aylaian said that the HOP would likely say that he is permitted to store no more than one trailer on the site, not to conduct anything associated to his business going forward and because ARC approved it he would be allowed to park one vehicle. Commissioner Gregory restated his motion to grant a provisional approval for a period of six months, subject to approval of the applicant's business license and HOP with the understanding that the trailer will always be covered; at the end of six months the applicant must provide some type of fence and gate to be reviewed and approved by this Board; and that the trailer only be stored on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were approving it for six months to resolve the GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\2009\AR090825min.dOc Page 5 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REWtW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 problem and Commissioner Gregory said yes. Commissioner Van Wet said that the applicant could ignore the problem and then bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner Touschner said that they are looking for a solution that provides more screening than he currently has. Commissioner Gregory said that from his prospective the applicant is trying to run a business and this is the last opportunity he has to get it approved before the moratorium goes into effect. Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant why the trailer couldn't be stored in La Quinta full time. Mr. Cruz stated that he receives his shipment of water on Thursdays and loads them Friday night to be ready early on Saturday morning for the street faire. The Commission discussed the issue of the applicant running a business out of his home which may be an issue. Commissioner Gregory stated that this may be a mute point if he doesn't get the HOP. Ms. Aylaian asked if there were other deliveries and the applicant said no. Commissioner Lambell reiterated that the motion states that one of the conditions is that he obtain the HOP. There being no further discussion a vote was taken. The vote carried 4-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Van Vliet voting NO. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant provisional approval for six months subject to: 1) obtaining an approved Business License and a Home Occupancy Permit; 2) trailer allowed on site Friday, Saturday and Sunday only; 3) six months from approved date, cut two feet off roof and provide a gate to screen trailer; 4) cover to remain on the trailer at all time; 5) plans to be reviewed by staff prior to returning to the Architecture Review Commission for final approval. Motion carried 4-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Van Vliet voting NO. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090825min.doc Page 6 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 2. CASE NO: SA 09-178 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41945 Broadway, Suite L, Palm Desert CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument sign. LOCATION: 74-710 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 N, SP Ms. Grisa presented this project and summarized the staff report. This applicant came before the Commission on three separate occasions on April 28, 2009, May 19, 2009, and May 26, 2009 with three separate design revisions. Upon the original submittal, staff informed the applicant that the design did not appear to match the architecture of the building and requested that the design be revised. Staff recommended denial due to sign placement, design revisions, the lack of a landscape plan, as well as public works issues relating to utility easements in this area. The Commission took no action due to a lack of a quorum. The applicant returned on May 19 with design revisions including reducing the number of tenants from four to three and reduced the height. After further review, the Public Works Department determined that the sign location could be approved within the general utility easement area. Again, no action was taken due to a lack of a quorum. Staff brought forth the same contemporary double-sided sign to the May 26, 2009 meeting due to no action taking place at the last two meetings. Staff discussed the building having a Mediterranean style while the sign felt more contemporary and still did not emanate the architecture of the building. All of the Public Works issues had been resolved, but it would be a tight space to fit a monument sign between the separate easements and the sidewalk. The other main item of contention was the existence of two separate monument signs, one being the Palm Desert City entry sign to the west and the Village Court sign to the east. In addition to the monument signs, there was a "For Lease" sign as well as a speed limit sign all within a 130' area of frontage. Similar concerns came from the Commission that the additional sign created too much clutter and that the design didn't fit with the building. The ARC then discussed the possibilities of monuments or directional signage in other areas GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\N Minutes\2009WR090825min.doc Page 7 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REV'P-* COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 of the development. Ultimately, the sign was denied by the Commission. The applicant has since submitted an appeal to City Council on June 4, 2009. Since that appeal, an owner's representative presented himself and had several meetings with City staff asking what could be done to avoid going to Council with an appeal. Staff made some recommendations to the representative and suggested after making those changes they take it back through ARC one more time for new review. If at that point, they still do not have approval, staff would take the case forward to City Council for the appeal. The owner's representative had the "For Lease" sign moved and made a request to the Public Works Department to have the speed limit sign relocated. This removed two signs from the front of the building that contributed to the prior clutter. Staff also worked with the applicant to assist in creating a design that would better fit the architecture of the building. The applicant is presenting a new design that incorporates some of the design elements of the building, as well as returning with copies of the previous designs. Staff recommends that the main body of the sign match the main body of the building in which the sign represents. The top caps of the sign should correlate to another color in the building. Staff recommends tying in the tenant names and the top cap to the exposed wood beams in a dark brown for the cap and dark bronze lettering, and dressing up the overall sign by using a brushed silver color on the aluminum bars and address numbers. Lastly, staff would recommend slightly lowering the pillar and capping it off at a 90 degree angle as well as either creating a larger base or lowering the overall arched portion of the sign creating less room between the base and the first line of text. Materials chosen for the design consist of welded aluminum with a painted texture coated exterior. Overall, signage area is roughly 15 sq. ft. on each side of the monument. Three actual tenant panels are located on each side and no illumination interior or exterior has been presented as a part of this proposal. The lettering materials will be made from 1/4-inch aluminum. Overall, staff feels that the changes requested and implemented by the owner's representative have made a positive impact on the design of the monument. The two permanent monument signs still do remain, but the removal of the two posted signs helped to create a more clear space. With minor design revisions, and a landscape proposal to address the turf overspray irrigation system immediately adjacent the sign, staff feels confident this sign can be effectively installed with the assistance of the inspectors of the GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090825min.doc Page 8 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION �.rr MINUTES August 25, 2009 Public Works Department and will not deter from the aesthetics of the area. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it meets the visibility set back issue. Ms. Grisa stated that Public Works didn't have a problem with it because it was a right turn only. The Commission reviewed the plans from the previous submittal and asked what has changed. Ms. Grisa stated that the "For Lease" sign has been moved out of the main frontage area and the speed limit sign that was located in the grass has been moved to another location not within the 130 feet that is in front of the building. Mr. Alibaba Farzaneh, representative stated that he met with Public Works after meeting with the Planning staff and got a work order to have the sign moved. He stated that the "For Lease" sign can be relocated if the Commission would like it moved. He explained that he had the monument sign redesigned. He explained to the Commission that this monument sign will help these people stay in business. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed signage. Commissioner Van Vliet felt there was still too much clutter on that corner with the Welcome to Palm Desert sign and the Village Court sign on the corner and with the sign being five and a half feet tall. Mr. Farzaneh stated that when placed in front of the city monument sign it doesn't appear that big. He also said they do not have any control over the Village Court sign. Commissioner Touschner stated that it is much better than it was now that the "For Lease" sign and the speed limit sign have been relocated; her sense is that at the end of the day this is not going to look that big. She stated that the drawing is out of scale and is probably bigger in the picture than in real life. Commissioner Touschner said she liked the first sign rendering more than the new proposed rendering because it has more edges and it doesn't look as massive as the second sign. Her concern is that since this slopes she asked if the base was concrete and would it be poured to slope. Mr. Chad Addington, sign representative described the design. Commissioner Touschner clarified that the top of the base would be flat and the base will have some varying thickness because it will follow the grade of the ground. Mr. Addington said that the area where that sign will be located is a perfectly level area so it won't be sloping either way with the sign. He presented additional photos and explained that he measured that area and it is almost perfectly flat. He also stated that they will make it uniform with the landscape. GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\200MAR0W825min.doc Page 9 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REV V COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Touschner said she wasn't clear that this sign wasn't going to interfere with people exiting the complex. Commissioner Levin stated that it is a right turn only and people would not be looking for oncoming traffic. Ms. Grisa said that they could place an additional condition that Public Works signs off on this plan. Commissioner Levin agreed that the first sign submitted had a much cleaner look than the new rendering. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there would be any illumination on the sign and Mr. Addington stated there would be no illumination, but there may be some landscaping lighting. Ms. Grisa stated that if this is approved could the Commission make a condition on where the For Lease sign will be located and subject to a landscape plan. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Levin, granted approval of design number two (the sign with the angular, modern design lowered in height with three tenant panels on each side) subject to: 1) the For Lease sign to be located on the north side of the sidewalk; and, 2) approval of the Landscape Specialist and the Public Works Department. Motion carried 4-2, with Commissioner Gregory and Vuksic abstaining. 3. CASE NO: RV 09-358 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD MACIAG, 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV in the front yard. LOCATION: 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue ZONE: R-2 Ms. Grisa presented this project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park an approximately 10` high by 8' wide by 20' long recreational vehicle (RV) in the front yard of a residence located along the eastern front yard parked parallel with the house. The height of the adjacent yard wall roughly starts at 6' in height stepping down to approximately 5' and 4' thereafter. The full height of the yard wall extends back towards the rear yard. The applicant is additionally proposing a 6' to 8' high movable fence to be parallel with the street as indicated in the attached site plan, which would extend out from an adjacent column on the house and GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20WAR0g0825min.doc Page 10 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION Nftsoe MINUTES August 25, 2009 end where existing and new proposed landscaping would be located. At this time, there are three 16' palm trees and the applicant is proposing to add three new shrubs to additionally screen the east side of the RV. The requested placement of this RV would still leave 4' fully exposed to the street and adjacent neighboring properties, since 6' is the maximum wall height permitted. Landscape can be planted for additional screening, but landscaping is not always maintained and should not be relied upon as a permanent screening technique. Lastly, Chapter 8.40.050C.3 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code states, the vehicle must not encroach into the public right-of-way and, unless an exception is granted by the city, the vehicle shall be parked perpendicular to the public right-of-way. This vehicle is not proposed to be parked perpendicular to the public right-of-way, and a separate request went before the Commission on April 28, 2009 requesting approval to park a RV perpendicular to the street in the front yard, but was denied due to inadequate screening from adjacent lots and the public street. Staff is recommending denial due to the fact that an exception has not been granted to park the vehicle parallel to the public right-of-way rather than perpendicular as noted in Chapter 8.40.050C.3. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if this was a different RV than his first proposal. Mr. Richard Maciag, applicant said they now have a smaller RV and asked if RVs were allowed in front yards with adequate screening. He asked the Commission for their definition of adequate screening because he has driven around Palm Desert taking pictures of several RVs that were parked in front of homes with bushes, potted plants and trees to screen them and wanted to know what was adequate. He said that he can come up with different ideas, and asked the Commission to help determine the type of screening that will be accepted because the ordinance is very vague. Mr. Swartz stated that on August 27, 2009 the City Council will hear a request for a moratorium to provide staff the time to develop standards regarding RVs. Mr. Maciag asked if his proposal is denied could he appeal and then come in with another design. Ms. Grisa stated that if a new design is significantly different from the original design he can re-submit a design review. Mr. Maciag stated that as he drove around the neighborhood there were junk cars, utility trailers, fifth wheels, and an abandoned ice cream truck parked in front of residential homes. He mentioned that Code Compliance had issued him a violation and informed him that he would be fined $50 a day for his RV. He asked the officer GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090825min.doc Page 11 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REV * COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 about the other vehicles in the neighborhood and the officer said those were on appeal. He pointed out to the Commission that where his RV is parked now is almost a three car wide driveway and felt it would be the perfect spot. Commissioner Levin said unfortunately it doesn't come close to being adequately screened. Mr. Maciag said that he could build a screen and cover it with a six- foot limitation. Commissioner Gregory stated that this problem is exactly why a moratorium is needed because it is so difficult to try to come up with a consistent response because each case is a little different. The term adequate screening is not a good term and doesn't give an objective means for someone to determine if it would work. The problem in most cases is that an RV, such as this, is large in proportion to the size of the house and because of that you have a problem with how to screen it when it is so large. What happens is the screen becomes an architectural element and starts to be viewed in a way as either a part of the house or something competing with the house. Mr. Maciag referred to the previous approval for a trailer in the side yard and asked what the difference was between that trailer and his RV. Commissioner Gregory stated that there are many things that are different and obviously it is a subjective opinion. Mr. Maciag said that the trailer will be at the applicant's house for three or four days and asked if he could do the same thing. Commissioner Gregory said that the problem with a subjective review is that you run into the same type of a thing each time and everyone has a different take. He said that applicants feel very strongly about wanting their RVs on their property and have a vested interest in it having them approved, but someone else won't. He felt that it was a very poor way to make the system work and no one is happy with it. Mr. Maciag asked if the RVs parked in front of residential homes that were approved before the moratorium goes into effect would be grandfathered in. Commissioner Levin stated that just because they are parked there doesn't mean they are grandfathered in. If they have come before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the screening was approved, then that approval stands. Mr. Maciag said that if he could find an RV in town that's been approved by the ARC and follows the same or similar screening could he submit a plan for that. Mr. Swartz stated that every lot size is different and on the smaller lots you wouldn't be able to park RVs in the front or on the sides. That is why staff is revisiting the ordinance and revising it to get clear direction. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090825min.doc Page 12 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL Rl�*tW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic said that the Commission tries to make good decisions and has approved RVs in the past with landscape screening but they have found some that are not a good solution because the landscape changes and it doesn't look natural. The Commission is far less likely now to approve them then in years past. He stated that it is rare anymore where they approve RVs in the front yard. Mr. Maciag said the Commission just approved the utility trailer in the front yard. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the trailer is only there three nights a week for his business and it was a difficult discussion that received a split vote. Commissioner Lambell stated that the previous applicant has to obtain a business permit and a Home Occupational Permit (HOP) to get approved. Commissioner Gregory stated that he may not get the HOP because what he is doing may not be legal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it is a temporary approval with a lot of conditions. Commissioner Levin said that if Mr. Maciag parks the RV parallel to the front of the house he will obscure the whole house and thought that the RV would be more visible. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to address the applicant's question that he asked earlier so the Commission doesn't lead him down any path. Going out and taking pictures of something that was approved some time ago is not a guarantee that doing the same thing would be approved now, because we may feel that it was a bad decision looking back at it. Mr. Maciag said that some of the residents just put a bunch of potted plants in front of their RVs, as shown in some of the photos, and were lucky enough to get approved. Commissioner Vuksic said that is a great example of a bad decision. Commissioner Gregory said that was an example where the Commission tried to help and attempted something and later realized that it was a mistake. It was really "iffy" at the time and the Commission was actually trying to be nice. Commissioner Lambell said she had a problem with it merely because it is too big for the lot; it's like trying to put a size ten foot into a size five shoe. She felt that the applicant had a wonderful looking home that will be obscured by the RV and suggested that it not be parked at this location and to find a place to store it. Mr. Maciag asked what the difference was between his parking his RV at his home and the previous case. Commissioner Lambell stated they are different vehicles. Mr. Maciag said that the previous case was a commercial vehicle. Commissioner Van Vliet said that the vehicles look substantially different; it was a trailer which was covered and doesn't look like the RV. Mr. Swartz said that utility trailers, boats, RVs are all classified as a recreational vehicle. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090825min.doc Page 13 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIdil COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Gregory informed the applicant that he could appeal to the City Council. Ms. Aylaian stated that if the Commission denies his application today the applicant can appeal to the City Council and they will hear the appeal pending the outcome of the moratorium. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant's proposal to park parallel to the face of the house was not sanctioned in the ordinance. Ms. Grisa answered that was correct. Mr. Maciag stated that he would then go back to his original proposal with it parked perpendicular to the house. Ms. Grisa informed the applicant that the appeal period for the first application has lapsed. Regarding the proposal in front of the Commission today the ordinance states it cannot be granted an approval unless an exception is granted by the City Council to park an RV parallel with the house. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, denied Case RV 09-358 due to the fact that an exception has not been granted to park the vehicle parallel to the public right-of-way rather than perpendicular; and 2) inadequate screening from adjacent lots and the public street. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO: RV 09-349 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARTHA HOGAN, 77-210 California Drive, Palm Desert CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a recreational vehicle (boat) in the side yard. LOCATION: 77-210 California Drive ZONE: R-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a recreational vehicle (boat) in the side yard of the residence on California Drive. The residence is on a corner lot that has unique topography characteristics that allow views down into the back and side yard from the public right-of-way on Kansas Street. The boat is approximately 4' high and is completely screened from California Drive behind a roughly 6' high, opaque, wrought iron gate. Although the gate does not appear to be permanently attached to adjacent structures, it is blocking the view of the boat from California Drive. As you turn the corner onto GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090825min.doc Page 14 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL RW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Kansas Street, the boat is below the ground level adjacent the public right-of-way, but it can be seen quite easily as someone is driving or walking down the sidewalk. Along the back of the boat is a wooden fence that encloses this space, connecting the retaining block wall adjacent the street to the house. Staff recommends that the applicant adequately screen the boat from Kansas Street with either a permanent yard wall structure or landscaping. Neither has been proposed as a part of this application. As a part of the screening that would be required on Kansas Street, staff would suggest creating a gate on California that appeared more permanent in the construction, rather than the loose stacked CMU blocks that are located on either side of the gate at this time. Ms. Grisa informed the Commission that a notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. Ms. Kris Jeffries, neighbor stated that this is a small boat and it is a unique lot and that is the problem; the boat is quite visible on Kansas Street. She felt that it wasn't adequately screened and said that if the applicant was approved for a fence and landscaping it would certainly help. Mr. Arturo Mondragon introduced himself as the representative for his aunt, Ms. Martha Hogan. He stated that at one time there was landscaping there but it was all removed because they were told that there was a problem with the fence not being sound; he doesn't have a problem with putting landscape there. Commissioner Vuksic asked why the fence was not sound and Mr. Mondragon said that they were told that it was too tall from the bottom where the retaining wall was. He informed the Commission that the retaining wall sits about four to five feet below. Ms. Jeffries said that most people have put up a fence somewhat away and thought that if you get too far from the retaining wall towards the street you may not have enough space there. She indicated that there were also telephone poles located near there. Commissioner Van Vliet said that in this case it is an ideal opportunity to screen it out with a wall or landscaping and it will solve the problem. Commissioner Gregory stated that the parkway appears to be useable to landscape or to put a fence in and suggested that this be continued to give the applicant an opportunity to resubmit his proposal with a plan indicating how they would screen the boat from above. Commissioner Touschner stated that the fence in the front needs to be made permanent and not held up by a block wall. Mr. Mondragon stated that his aunt has been ill and that he would finish the gate and the wall as soon as possible. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\200gWR090825min.doc Page 15 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REO&W COMMISSION *"01, MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Gregory asked Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development if this application was continued is it survivable in view of the moratorium. Ms. Aylaian suggested that it be continued to a date certain. She stated that the moratorium is moving on a fast pace and staff has already seen a draft and the ordinance will be submitted for first reading within 45 to 60 days. She felt that if the Commission were to continue this for 90 days there should be some new guidelines in place. Commissioner Gregory said that the applicant could submit his changes in 90 days and the Commission would have more tools to help them make a decision. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case RV 09-349 for 90 days to allow applicant to: 1) adequately screen the boat from Kansas Street with either a permanent yard wall structure and/or landscaping; 2) construct a permanent gate on California; and, 3) submit a landscape and screening plan for staff review prior to returning to the Architecture Review Commission for final approval. Motion carried 6-0. 5. CASE NO: RV 09-348 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HELENA SOPWITH, 45-585 Abronia Trail, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV in the side yard. LOCATION: 45-585 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a RV in the south, side yard of the residence located at 45-585 Abronia Trail. The dimensions of the RV are approximately 8' wide, 10' high, and 35' long. Existing landscaping currently blocks a clear path of travel to move the RV into the back, side yard. As a part of the request for approval, the applicant has submitted a site plan illustrating proposed landscape and site modifications along with fence and gate design drawings. New 6' high wrought iron fencing would replace existing chain link fencing and connect to an existing combination block wall / fence toward the back side yard. A new wood side yard gate is proposed at 6'-6" for RV entry into the back yard and to provide screening GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090825min.doc Page 16 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL R EW COMMISSION *4410 MINUTES August 25, 2009 from the street. The maximum height standard for walls and gates is 6' high; ARC would need to approve the additional height as proposed. Also, since there are existing non-approved fencing materials surrounding this property and to ensure the removal or replacement of these items, a condition of a final approval should be to remove all chain link, chicken wire, or dried-grass fencing/screening devices that do not meet current City standards. Staff is concerned with the proposed landscape design as a permanent screening mechanism from the adjacent property owner's yard. Ficus trees are proposed to line the south, side yard wall, but there appears to be only 3' available as proposed for planting these trees which can become quite large. The existing block wall with picket fencing behind these trees is only built to a height of 2' to 3' tall. If landscaping were to fail and not provide continuous coverage the RV would be largely exposed to the neighboring property. The screening mechanism to the south and at the back of the property consists of Oleanders, which could also have the same effects or become ridden with the disease that overcomes these plants in this area and leave the RV exposed to the neighboring property to the west. As shown in the attached photos, there are Oleanders and miscellaneous plantings that line the property line to the south in the front yard. Staff is confident that these plants will need to be removed to gain a usable access for the RV to have a clear path of travel into the back yard. The proposed site plan calls out Oleanders to remain. This shrubbery blocks most of the view to the back yard as of now, but when the landscaping is removed to create a driveway the modifications may create more direct views to the proposed RV parking location. Direct views may be possible as one is driving north on Abronia Trail or west on Chicory Street. Currently, it is unclear which landscaping is to remain and what will be removed so the RV will fit in the proposed location. Staff would recommend that this case be continued until the applicant can provide revised, more detailed drawings illustrating how the RV will be screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent property owners. Ms. Helena Sopwith, applicant stated that the oleanders would be removed and they are trying to find another type of plant matter that they can plant instead. She stated that the RV will be parked in the back of the property and explained that the RV is there for a limited time during the season because her husband uses it for the LPGA tour. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090825min.doc Page 17 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REV( * COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 Commissioner Levin referred to the photos of the adjacent property with a 4' high wall and said that if that is where the RV is going to be stored it will be totally visible to the lot next door. Ms. Grisa stated that the applicant is proposing Ficus trees to line the wall. The Commission reviewed and discussed the landscape drawing. Ms. Sopwith pointed out that her neighbor doesn't have any windows in the back of their house and they don't use their back yard because they don't have much room there. Commissioner Gregory stated that Ficus trees are a very tough plant and they take a lot of abuse, but they are not bullet-proof if you don't irrigate them. They are planted about 3 to 3'/2' apart and fill in quickly. Commissioner Levin asked if they were planning on concreting the area where the RV will be stored. Ms. Sopwith stated that they have an issue with concreting because they have wiring there and issues with what is under ground and they didn't want to pave over something that shouldn't be paved. Ms. Grisa noticed that there were some electrical lines and a power line utility and asked if they were going to be in the way. Ms. Sopwith said that she measured it and the RV is out of the way. Commissioner Touschner suggested that this be continued to allow the applicant to come back with a landscape plan so the Commission can review what is being planted there. Commissioner Gregory also suggested that she bring photos of the RV in the proposed location. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case RV 09-348 for 90 days subject to: 1) submitting photos of the RV (in the proposed location if possible); and, 2) submitting a full landscape site plan to be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090825min.doc Page 18 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REWEW COMMISSION Nmot MINUTES August 25, 2009 NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, adding Case No. MISC 09-332 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 6. CASE NO: MISC 09-332 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRED PIZZUTO, 44-645 San Antonio Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a carport 20 feet from face of curb LOCATION: 44-645 San Antonio Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz stated that this proposal for a carport came before the Commission at the last meeting and was continued subject to the applicant submitting a site plan drawn to scale, submitting material samples, photos of the project, and proposing other locations. At the last meeting, the Commission asked about placing the carport on the additional property, but the applicant stated that is not his lot and he would have to do a lot line adjustment. The applicant is not interested in doing that. The Commission reviewed the new site plan. Mr. Esteban Gallegos, representative presented the materials for the carport, and stated there would be 2' x 6" rafters 24" on center. He described how the rafter would be installed and the color of the carport. The height to the bottom of the header beam will be 7' and he will attach the 2' x 6" rafters to the eaves of the house, which will be popped up above the eave. Commissioner Van Vliet said it will be hard to tell what it will look like. Commissioner Vuksic said his initial concern at the last meeting was that it felt odd and seemed as though it may not work on the side of the house, then the Commission suggested putting it in the middle and making it a porti-cochere. It seemed like it was a proportional solution that balanced the house and took away the awkwardness of having a circular driveway going through a rectilinear structure that the Commission didn't like. Now there is more of it coming across the whole front of the house; it seems like they have gone backwards. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090825min.dOc Page 19 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVreW COMMISSION '''SOO, MINUTES August 25, 2009 The Commission and the representative discussed the carport structure and location. Mr. Fred Pizzuto, applicant said that the original proposal was for the carport to go towards the old garage and at the last meeting it was suggested that the carport go across the front of the house. He expressed that he would like to pull both vehicles in on the one side as indicated in the original proposal. Commissioner Vuksic said that there may have been a misunderstanding. He explained that their suggestion at the last meeting was to have the structure be located in the middle section of the house and not go across the house. Mr. Pizzuto stated that that wouldn't do anything and didn't understand why it can't come straight out from the garage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was difficult to read the drawing because it was not to scale. Mr. Gallegos stated that he didn't want to pay an architect to do a drawing. The Commission stated that the carport was not long enough for the truck. They discussed and reviewed the plans with the applicant. Commissioner Levin stated that the Commission needs to see a drawing that shows the house, the curb and the driveway configuration. The drawing that was submitted doesn't show how the carport relates to everything else. Commissioner Vuksic said that in the drawing it is questionable whether or not it would work. Commissioner Touschner presented a sketch where the driveway could be located to give it some balance and shade for the vehicles. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant needs to submit accurate drawings so the Commission will understand exactly where this will be located and where the posts will be. Mr. Pizzuto stated again that the reason they presented this proposal was because of the suggestions from the last meeting where they were proposing the carport to go straight into the old garage with two posts where they would just pull in; it's very simple. Commissioner Vuksic said that it may be that simple if they provide a site plan that supports that design. The Commission discussed the posts for the carport. Mr. Pizzuto said they will do straight posts that will go into the grass, and then you drive straight in. Commissioner Vuksic said that they could do that to show that it is balanced on the garage fagade where it adds another layer to the house and wouldn't look like an afterthought. Mr. Gallegos stated that he will make it look as uniform to the house as he can. Commissioner Vuksic said that they need to pay someone to do a drawing to scale. Commissioner Van Wet said that it would protect everyone and the applicant would understand exactly what he was getting. GAP1anning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2009\AR090825min.doc Page 20 of 22 r ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION `"000 MINUTES August 25, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case MISC 09-332 subject to submitting an architectural rendering of proposed carport drawn to scale and a site plan that shows the correct measurements of the carport. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin adding Case No. DA/PP/CUP 08-50 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO: DA/PP/CUP 08-50 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BERNARD INVESTMENT GROUP INC., 3991 MacArthur Blvd. #340, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval to develop and construct 20 studio senior citizen apartments. LOCATION: 73-582 Catalina Way ZONE: R3 SO Mr. Swartz presented the final working drawings for a senior housing development. It was approved by the ARC on May 16, 2008 and as part of the approval process Building and Safety, Landscape, and Public Works have signed off. At the meeting in 2008, the Commission wanted to see the final working drawings to make sure that all roof top equipment was screened. The Commission and the applicant Ken Bernard reviewed and discussed the working drawings. Mr. Bernard stated that the cooling units are located outside in the side yards and not on the roof. The units are 16" x 36" x 40" with a screen around them and incorporated into the landscape plan. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval of final working drawings. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090825m1n.doc Page 21 of 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVPLTW COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2009 B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to add the recreational vehicle moratorium update to the agenda. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 1. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion of a moratorium on the Recreational Vehicle permit approval process. Ms. Grisa informed the Commission that staff and code enforcement met and made some revisions to the recreational vehicle ordinance. The City Manager has requested that a subcommittee be formed and Ms. Grisa asked if one of the Commissioners would like to sit on that subcommittee to go over revisions before they are brought to the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed to sit on the committee. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. KEVIN SWARTZ ASSISTANT PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200TAR090825min.doc Page 22 of 22