Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-08 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 19 2 Chris Van Vliet X 20 1 John Vuksic X 20 1 Karel Lambell X 20 1 Pam Touschner X 16 5 Allan Levin X 15 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist 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: Minutes of the November 10, 2009 meeting to be approved at the next meeting. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION low MINUTES December 8, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-462 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): D.R. HORTON, Barbara Murakami, 2280 Wardlow Circle #100, Corona, CA 92880 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three new architectural plans to be built on 58 lots within tract 31490-1 (previously owned by Ponderosa). LOCATION: Tract 31490-1 ZONE: PR-5 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. D.R. Horton has purchased 58 lots from Ponderosa Homes II. The company is essentially acting as a guest builder within the development. They are not changing or adding any amenities to the common areas or streets, only building homes on pre-existing lots. D.R. Horton has proposed three new architectural plans to be built on these lots. Plan 1 consists of 1,169 square feet, plan 2 consists of 1,946 square feet, and plan 3 consists of 2,351 square feet. All layouts have optional patio additions and plans 1 and 3 have the option of a den or bedroom. Each of the various plans has three separate facades and three roof plans to create different exterior appearances. Also, nine separate color schemes have been designed to additionally create interest within the three plans. Each of the nine color schemes illustrate a stucco finish with muted desert paint colors, manufactured stone, and concrete roof tiles. Not every fagade illustrates manufactured stone, so some plans may have the color scheme with or without the addition of the stone as shown. The previous conditions set up for Ponderosa Homes II related to lots less than 10,000 square feet, which apply to the majority of the 58 lots D.R. Horton purchased, designate 14' total side yard setbacks, no side less than 5' and 20' on the front and rear yards. The maximum height is 18', one story with 35% lot coverage. Plans 1 and 3 meet all of the typical setbacks for these smaller lots. Plan 2 has a reduced front yard setback for a total of 15' which was recommended staff exception based on the standard under Section 25.16.090. This plan is within the Planned Residential zone under Section 25.24.250 which states all single- story, single family buildings shall comply with Chapter 25.16 with the majority of lot sizes determining the standard. GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR091208min.doc Page 2 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 Plans 1, 2, and 3 illustrate discrepancies in height from top of grade to top of floor. Plan 3 illustrates an overall building height of 19'-6" which the architect will be reducing to meet the 18'-0" height maximum. Notation revisions will be addressed at the meeting by the architect. Plans 1 through 3 range in site coverage from approximately 25% to 35%. The architectural facades illustrate variations of desert prairie, Spanish, and desert ranch styles that will blend well with the existing homes and provide some variation in architectural form from the initial built homes within the development. The home sizes for these new plans range from 1,629 — 2,351 square feet, which in comparison from the previous, planned development are on the smaller side. The home square footage as presented for Ponderosa Homes ranged from 2,350 — 2700 square feet for the smaller size lots, which D.R. Horton has purchased. Although, they are on the smaller side, this provides for a variety of size that is in comparison with the previously approved plans. Setbacks, lot coverage, and height are all in comparison with the previous development and comply with the conditions and zoning ordinance as previously approved under Ponderosa Homes II. The minor discrepancies in height will be addressed at the meeting with revised plans. This will address the differences in top of grade and top of floor and the one elevation that illustrates a height of 19'-6" reduced to 18'-0". The landscape specialist has evaluated the plant palette and found it to be the same as previously approved with some slight modifications. Three typical plans have been illustrated, but the atypical front yards still need to be reviewed for preliminary approval. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the size of the units were a part of this review and Ms. Grisa stated that she mentioned the size because there was a concern with the homeowners, however this was addressed at another meeting with the management. She stated that basically the Commission is looking at the architecture and landscape. Mr. Bagato stated that this was noticed and Commissioner Gregory asked if there was anyone from the community in attendance; none were noted. Mr. Dan Boyd, Representative stated that they conducted a community meeting with several of the homeowners with a full presentation and answered a number of questions. The homeowners were concerned about downsizing. Mr. Boyd felt that staff did an articulate job describing that it is well within the R-1 standard and that was something they would express their concerns acutely with Ponderosa. The homeowners felt D.R. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091208min.doc Page 3 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION r.r►� MINUTES December 8, 2009 Horton did a reasonable job presenting the project and answering their questions. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he appreciated the elevations that show the offsets of the different surfaces; it is extremely helpful. He said the wainscots should have footings under them. In regards to the chimneys it is important that the spark arrestors have attractive housing around them. Ms. Barbara Murakami, representative said the fireplaces are optional and are all direct vent through the side wall. She pointed out that they are appliance units, not wood burning and didn't think they require a spark arrestor. Commissioner Vuksic assumed that the exterior walls were 2 by 4 and said that the side and rear windows should have 2 x 3 nailors to get a little recess. Mr. Alan Menzies, architect stated that the plans did not have any recess on the sides or the windows as they were going along with the same details as used previously. Commissioner Vuksic said that the Commission may have missed it because normally they require a recess of at least an inch. Mr. Menzies stated that he had photos of the existing product of the sides and rear and stated that the surrounds, headers, and sills come out approximately a 1 1/2" from the walls and the windows are flushed with the walls. Mr. Menzies said that they are extending the footing out underneath the wainscots, but not on the manufactured stone. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the eave details are plastered 2 by 6 and wrapped. Mr. Menzies stated that there is a concern with maintenance and what they have found to work is not doing the whole thing in stucco including the fascia because when it rains the dirt comes down and gets into the stucco, then it starts degrading the stucco. Another approach is to use a pressure treated wood product that is dimensionally stable so that it won't have the problem of contraction and expansion, which causes it to turn or twist. It then becomes a drip edge for the water running off the roofs and over time it would be less maintenance. Commissioner Vuksic thought the thin fascia cheapens the look of the homes and suggested using a plaster fascia to make them a little more substantial giving them some difference rather than having them all identical throughout the project; some angled and some with a stacked detail. Mr. Menzies stated that the detail on Elevation E is kind of flat but the other two are angled in terms of GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word FIes\A Winutes\20091AR091208min.doc Page 4 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION *Iftwll MINUTES December 8, 2009 the soffit. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that he was talking about the whole fascia soffit and would like to see it plastered as opposed to looking like wood on all proposed elevations. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what height they should be and Commissioner Vuksic said that if some were to have a step to them or an angle they ought to be more like 10". Ms. Murakami expressed that the way they are currently designed they match the Ponderosa in detail. Mr. Menzies said they are close, he said the Ponderosa has stucco over it so it makes it a little bit bigger. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on Elevation B - Plan 1, the whole wall element on the front elevation needs to protrude out another foot because as it comes up it's a large gable roof element and the wall that sits on top is only out 16" past the main wall of the house. Mr. Menzies felt that 16" gives an adequate amount of return and it's not necessary to bring it out further and stated that they would like to keep it where it is. Commissioner Vuksic was sensitive to the design concerns but that is actually a substantial element including the roof and was concerned that it would look kind of flat with it just sticking out that little bit. He asked the architect if he agreed. Mr. Menzies didn't think it would look flat. Ms. Murakar-hi stated that they would have to go back to the division president and design assistant to see what they think about this because it does change the square footage of the layout. Mr. Boyd stated that the articulation compared to the current product is comparable and compatible. He appreciates the Commission's comments but these comments will cause a major redesign. He said that this is a smaller profile product so it's not as if they have a wide home and thought the 12" will be more than enough to achieve that articulation. In addition to that is the landscape in the front yard that will create different elements that will break up the front street view. He respectfully asked to keep the design as is and in reference to Commissioner Vuksic's request for the stucco eave, he thought that is something appropriate and would be prepared to change that. Commissioner Touschner stated that the color palette is great. The colors are similar and look well with each other. She did have a concern with Elevation C - Plan 3, that the relationship of the gables over the kitchen area and garage are substantially different than the other ones. Mr. Menzies stated that they did bring it down about a foot to a foot and a half and is within the perimeters of the overall community. He thought they would blend in with what is out there currently. The Commission reviewed the plans and GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFles\AMinutes\200MAP091209min.doc Page 5 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 Commissioner Touschner stated that if it is lower then it will absolutely look fine. Commissioner Touschner stated that the windows for Elevation D are a type of Frank Lloyd Wright windows and asked why the stone didn't come all the way across the elevation. Mr. Menzies stated that there are a couple of issues. One was that they wanted the material to end on an inside corner tying it back to the existing Ponderosa product. Commissioner Touschner stated that Elevation C - Plan 1 has the stone underneath the window and connecting and framing around the entrance. They are not wrapping it around the corner or taking it to the corner; they are cutting it back from the corner. Mr. Menzies stated that it is an architectural element that is related and centered on the window rather than taking it to the corner. Mr. Boyd stated that it sits out about 16" and frames that window and symmetrically serves to accentuate that portion of the building. He said that if it was wrapped around he didn't know how much more you are achieving; you may lose the articulation of the way the window is centered. Commissioner Gregory asked how the architecture design lends towards a passive solar mitigation effort. He stated that the units would look perfect on the coast, but here the desert has miserable summers. He didn't see a lot of effort other than a few entry ways; for example Elevation F - Plan 1. The eaves do not extend more than 12" from the wall which would not be much of an effort to reduce cooling bills. Mr. Boyd stated that staff advised them that not only would they be subjected to energy conservation requirements, but also subjected to the City's enhanced energy requirements forthcoming. Ms. Grisa stated that even though the A/C system may comply with Building and Safety they are still getting that direct sunlight when there is no overhang. Mr. Boyd felt that the design with the increased standards will prove that this product is efficient. Commissioner Gregory mentioned the Silver LEAD Certification and even though these are residential homes he brought it up in the spirit of energy conservation. He is used to seeing more eaves and overhangs over windows. He realizes that these are smaller homes but wanted to make sure that they are not using a coastal architectural template. Ms. Murakami stated that there two different option types that will be offered. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is too bad that this is not a part of the purchase because a lot of people won't do it. Commissioner Gregory stated that we have G1PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR091208min.doc Page 6 of 19 "rrd` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 to look at people who find out they can't afford their energy bills or they build a substandard structure that has a negative impact on the quality of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lambell referred to the floor plan for Plan 2 and asked why there were no windows on that side of the house. Mr. Menzies stated that for the utilization of the interior the windows were not necessary and could get in the way of furnishings for the dining room and the kitchen. Mr. Boyd stated that they wanted this floor plan to be very livable, so by sticking a window in that location would preclude a homeowner for situating something in that space. Commissioner Lambell stated they are missing the opportunity for passive air movement in that area that would create some sort of cross ventilation. She urged the applicant to put a window in the service area or dining room to help with energy costs. Ms. Murakami discussed ways of putting a window in one of those areas and said they would take a look at that recommendation. Commissioner Lambell asked if there were ceiling fans in the house and Ms. Murakami stated the master and the great room are pre- wired and thought that this is an option in the other bedrooms. Commissioner Lambell stated that it should be a part of the package because ceiling fans help immeasurably when the temperature gets above 85. The Commission continued their discussion on the patio issue. Commissioner Gregory stated this is an issue that they should be looking at because there is no relief with these basic home designs. He is concerned that people will buy them especially in this economy and won't have enough money left over to make it comfortable. Mr. Bagato stated that staff has been talking with the Building department because they are developing an optional mandatory green ordinance and this recommendation could be one of the solar designs. Mr. Boyd stated that he has seen some cities that have distinct options and the owner has to pick and choose from those options. It is a requirement of the design review so there is no guess work. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion and Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. The Commission and the applicant discussed the plaster fascia with two different eave designs both of which will be 10" high, and the applicant asked if they could amend the motion to say not less than 8". Commissioner Vuksic stated that he GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR091208min.doc Page 7 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE1W COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 could not see a single conflict after reviewing the elevation; unless they find a reasonable conflict. Ms. Hollinger reminded Ms. Murakami that they have to submit to the water district and informed her that she didn't know how they would view their submittal in terms of the state mandate or the AI31881. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to: 1) wainscot other than the stone required on footings below; 2) chimney exhaust through walls not roof; 3) plaster fascia with two different eave designs both of which will be 10" high, unless there is a conflict; staff to review; 4) add windows in dining room or service area on Plan 2; 5) pre-wire all rooms for ceiling fans; and 6) landscape plans subject to landscape approval. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-201 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PETER STURGEON, 73-185 Somera Road, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of fagade enhancement revisions; Palm Desert Self-Serve Car Wash. LOCATION: 73-220 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that this project was previously approved and the applicant is now proposing some changes. She presented several color samples for the end panels for both sides of the car wash and indicated that the color will remain the brick pattern as shown. The inside of the bays will be a white material that will be easier to clean. She pointed out that the white helps with reflected light inside with the shadowed areas using less lighting. The previous designer showed the end panels as a thin piece, but it actually comes out to a "T" so that the two inner pieces are 30" wide; then at the end it makes an "L" as it comes back in and that is 14 1/2" on that side. That causes the drivers to drive straight through rather than damaging the equipment on the sides. The Commission reviewed the color samples and discussed the selection of colors and the locations. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR091208min.doc Page 8 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REV'IW COMMISSION *404, MINUTES December 8, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) the use of white paneling inside the bays; 2) the playground beige protrusion to wrap around to meet white inside; 3) ironwork to be rusty brown and out-building painted sage to match rendering; and 4) tie the two colors together between the two buildings. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: MISC 09-482 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STANLEY R. SMITH, 73-526 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to store a RV in the side yard of a residence. LOCATION: 73-526 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1, 20,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The RV has been parked in the current location for quite some time and an existing block wall surrounds the property as well as a gate to enter the property. The applicant has proposed moving the RV back 6' away from the property line and continuing to plant bottlebrush vines along the wall to grow 9' tall on stakes and wire until mature. The RV measures 12' tall, 44' long, and 8' wide. The 9' hedge would essentially cover 75% of the RV, but take some time to grow and create a solid screen unless planted densely and at a mature height of 9' upon approval. The RV is located away from the street, but staff has driven by to take photos and evaluate the location on two occasions with the RV in plain sight due to the open gate. Currently, only 5' of the 12' height is screened from the adjacent neighbor and the RV is adjacent the wall. With the proposal, 9' of that 12' would be potentially screened from a consistently maintained hedge. Although, the new RV ordinance has not been approved, the recommendation in the proposed amendment is to screen 75% of the RV at time of planting installation upon approval; and the plant should be capable of full growth to screen the RV 100%. The storage location as proposed and conditioned would meet the ordinance currently in effect. She pointed out that in a photo submitted by the applicant it she does not believe that it is bottlebrush, so staff has to make sure that that bush or shrub can grow 9' tall to properly screen the RV. Staff GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR091208min.doc Page 9 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 recommends approval of the proposal as conditioned to park the RV in the side yard of the residence located at 73-526 Ironwood Street. Ms. Grisa stated that she visited the property to take photos and both times the gates were left opened and recommended that the gates are kept closed when not in use to help screen the RV from the front; otherwise there is a direct view from the public right of way which staff is trying to eliminate. Ms. Grisa stated that this was noticed and staff has received two complaints on the RV. She asked if there was anyone in attendance who wanted to speak to the Commission in favor of or opposition to. Ms. Susan Carney, neighbor stated that she has the property adjacent to the RV and her concern is a fire and safety issue because it was parked so close to the property line. She said that an RV holds diesel fuel and propane tanks and asked the Commission to take this into consideration. Ms. Suzanne Pride, neighbor presented photos of a garage in the neighborhood for a large RV and said this neighbor thought of the aesthetics of the neighborhood and it has enhanced the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to request Mr. Smith to either build a garage or to store the RV off site at a storage facility. She presented photos of Mr. Smith's RV and the adjacent neighbor's property and pointed that a large portion of the RV will still tower over the screening material. She pointed out that if this is approved then there will be other people in the neighborhood doing the same thing with their large RVs, which will be partially covered with shrubs or bushes. She stated there are a lot of old homes that are soon to be remodeled and stated that the City Council has done an exceptional job of helping to maintain the aesthetics in the neighborhood and asked that the Commission consider the same thing here. She mentioned that Mr. Smith has done a beautiful job remodeling the home which was a sore spot in the neighborhood for a long time. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the RV complies with the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance, as far as the property line. Ms. Grisa said that it is not parked 6' away from the property line. The last time staff brought the amended ordinance through, the Committee came to a compromise to have 6' away from the property line and screened 75% of the height of the RV with the planting capable of growing to full growth to screen the entire RV. She said that the applicant is proposing to screen it 9' and park it 6' away. The Commission felt that the applicant couldn't get it 6' GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2MMR091208min.doc Page 10 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE 'W COMMISSION `of MINUTES December 8, 2009 away and Ms. Grisa said it would be very close. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he reviewed the property from the street and it looks like the eave overhang of the guest house flushes out with the corner of the garage; so the closest it could be would be the corner of the garage. Mr. Stanley Smith, applicant stated that right now it is centered but he can move it over to 6'-4" if he puts it tight against the guesthouse. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant complies under the current ordinance with it being substantially or adequately screened and the applicant is proposing modifications to be consistent with the proposed code. Mr. Smith stated that he meets every requirement and is willing to comply with the proposed ordinance as well. Ms. Grisa said that in staff's opinion at this time it is not adequately screened, but the applicant is proposing to screen it with additional landscaping. Commissioner Levin asked if the gate is kept shut and Mr. Smith stated that he is the volunteer greens superintendent at the golf course next door and is in and out of his yard about 25 times a day. Commissioner Levin asked if he would be willing to put a secondary gate back by the garage so the gate by the RV can remain closed. Mr. Smith stated that he has the same type of gate on the other side of his circular driveway and he will start using that gate. Commissioner Levin asked how fast bottlebrush grows and Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that it is not about how fast it can grow, which is moderate, it's not a vine so it will need a lot of support. A screen wall will have to be put up for the plant to attach to and didn't think he could have a high enough screen wall. Mr. Smith stated that the wall is 6' so he would have to add a screen wall for 3'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't see why they cannot approve it. It is substantially screened or will be and ironically it will be much more screened when the house next door is completed. He understands how the neighbors feel, but it is absolutely going to be substantially screened. The Commission discussed what type of shrubbery would be needed to sustainably screen the unit up to 12' high and the type of trellis that could be used. Mr. Smith stated that it's been two years since the plants have been there and they completely cover the wall. He didn't see a problem of making it work. Commissioner Touschner stated that they have been focusing on the front and the side and asked if this was creating an GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR091208min.doc Page 11 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE1W COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 eyesore for any of the neighbors in the back. Mr. Smith said that the neighbors in the back sit about 10' to 12' below his property. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what makes this works is the way the adjacent house is positioned on the site and it's really the structure of the house that is up against the RV; it's not like the backyard is looking into the RV. Even though it's not the neighbor's obligation they could plant some trees on their side yard to screen it even more if they were sensitive to it. Commissioner Lambell asked how much room the fire department requires around the vehicle for access. Mr. Bagato stated that they don't require any room around vehicles, but for other areas they try to get three to five feet around A/C equipment and other things on the sides of homes. As long as one side of the house has clear access it is acceptable. Ms. Grisa stated that she received a letter from Chief Cooley stating that he had issues with RVs being stored on the side yard, but he didn't indicate a certain width for access. Commissioner Lambell stated that she had a problem with how it looks, how the gate appears to always be open, and with the difficulty of the planting material to grow to a height that will screen the unit from the neighbor. Mr. Smith stated that he is in compliance with the code 100% and if the Commission wanted him to plant something different from what is there, he didn't have a problem with that. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the RV as it meets the current guidelines. Commissioner Touschner made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Touschner added that the applicant needs to work with staff to make sure that the planting will be substantially screened within a year. Commissioner Levin added that the gate shall remain closed, except when opened for access. Ms. Hollinger stated that the plant itself will need additional support to achieve that height; a wire is not going to do it. Commissioner Vuksic amended his motion that the gate directly in front of the RV is to remain closed when not in use and daily business activities involving the golf course can be accessed from the other gate, and the planting material to be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091208min.doc Page 12 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVMW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant approval subject to: 1) RV being substantially screened and landscape grown to a 9' height within one year; 2) the gate directly in front of RV to remain closed when not in use and daily business activities involving golf course can be accessed from other gate; and 3) planting material to be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 3-2-1-0, with Commissioners Lambell and Van Vliet voting NO and Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 4. CASE NO: MISC 09-488 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HELENA SOPWITH, 45585 Abronia Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of front yard material wall exception. LOCATION: 45-585 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) originally reviewed a Recreational Vehicle (RV) application from this applicant previously. Since then, the applicant has decided not to move forward with the storage of the RV on-site, but they are continuing with exterior improvements to their home. Composite fencing has been installed along both front portions of the applicant's side yards at a height of 6'. Originally, the applicant was planning on installing wrought iron fencing along the front yard facing the street, since wood or composite fencing is not a permitted material in the front yard. Since the new composite fence has been installed, the applicant has changed her mind and would like to continue that material at a height of 6' around to the front yard, rather than change materials. An exception to this standard may be granted by the ARC under Section 25.56.195E Exceptions Procedures. The applicant's front yard fence as proposed is set back well beyond the 20' required for a 6' wall and gate. Staff has reviewed the site and finds that the new fence and house improvements have upgraded the property significantly. The tan composite fence appears to be a nice complement to the house, is low maintenance, and should not deteriorate as a traditional wood fence may due to our climate and irrigation systems. Continuing the fencing element in the same GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR091208min.doc Page 13 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 material would better serve the aesthetic of the property rather than switching the fence material to wrought iron. Staff recommends approval of the wall exception to continue the composite fence and gates around to the front yard. Neighbors within 300' of the residence were noticed ten days in advance of this meeting to offer comment in favor of or opposed to the wall extension. None were noted to be in attendance. Commissioner Vuksic asked why this fencing wasn't an approved material for the front and Ms. Grisa stated that code calls for stone, wrought iron, or decorative material. The City Council doesn't like to see wood in the front yard because it deteriorates and looks dilapidated after a while, but this fencing has the ability not to do that. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the section of the fencing is short, not going across the entire house and ties in to the corners. The Commission discussed the material and the color. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0. 5. CASE NO: MISC 09-483 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS):'JMA ARCHITECTS, P.O. Box 778, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of yard entry trellis exception. LOCATION: 73-550 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1 20,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The initial project request came through the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for a new single-family home proposed at a height of 17'. The commission approved the home by minute motion on a 7-0 vote on August 26, 2008. It has been brought to staff's attention that the entry gate trellis within the yard wall is above the City's standard maximum height for yard walls. As a part of that initial drawing set, only three cross members were shown at the very top of the trellis. Now five cross members appear making the trellis wider and bring a small corner of the system within the 20' required setback for walls. Additionally, the height of the trellis G:\Planning\.JanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2009\AR091208min.doc Page 14 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVVW COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 2009 system extends 2-71/a" above the 6' maximum height of yard walls for a total height of 8'-7'/a". The majority of the length of the front yard wall and the entry gate remains at the height of 5' and is setback the 15' as required per the zoning ordinance. The columns on either side of the gate rise up to 5'-8" and are setback more than 20' which allows up to 6' in height for these features. The trellis feature is the only portion of the wall that will rise above the specified height limits. This feature appears to be in—line by view of the site plan and height with the trellis procession beyond that leads to the front door. Staff is concerned that if this feature is changed, or brought down in height, it will not match the correlating feature beyond the front pedestrian gate. The architectural element is in keeping with the design of the house and does not cause any extra visual obstruction of the street. General Provisions Section 25.56.195E Exceptions Procedures allows for the ARC to approve a wall exception. The standard for walls and fences code does not specifically address entry gate features within yard walls and many similar cases have been approved in such instances based on architectural design. A similar concept next door to the west exists where the wall extends up above in an arched fashion over the front pedestrian gate; staff feels that it is in keeping with the neighborhood. Neighbors within 300' of the residence were noticed ten days in advance of this meeting to offer comment in favor of or opposed to the proposed construction. One person stopped in to ask questions regarding the matter and staff presented the drawings for that person's review. They did not offer specific comment, but they are expected to be at the meeting in person. Staff recommends approval of a wall exception for either five or three cross-members located at the top of the trellis feature. Mr. Stanley Smith, neighbor stated that he and other neighbors have gone through wall issues and compliance issues and asked how this exception can be granted. Mr. Bagato stated that the wall ordinance allows for an exception in the same process as the RV ordinance and allows people to request a height taller than 6', and is typical of what has been done in the past. Mr. Smith asked what if he has a problem with it being over 6' and Mr. Bagato said that he could appeal to the City Council. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVA Minutes\200MAR091206min.doc Page 15 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION �.w► MINUTES December 8, 2009 Ms. Suzanne Pride, neighbor stated that this project is beautiful and should be approved because the lot has been empty for a long time. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Gregory absent. 6. CASE NO: SA 09-478 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS),: BEST SIGNS, INC. 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument signs; The Cremation Center. LOCATION: 44-635 San Rafael Avenue ZONE: O.P. Ms. G risa presented the project and summarized the staff report. Three signs were initially installed with the same design at roughly the same three proposed locations. These signs are currently installed on boards on wood posts, which the ordinance does not allow for permanent or temporary signage in this case. A new signage proposal was submitted for three monument signs in the same design and fashion. The sign materials as proposed consist of aluminum cabinets with acrylic letters and vinyl graphics. No illumination is proposed. Signs A and C are proposed as double- faced signs and sign B would be single-sided. Staff believes the overall design of the sign could be further developed to correlate to the architecture of the site. The block like design appears as a billboard and does not visually enhance the site. The sign material is appropriate and the color of the lettering in muted browns and greens are a nice scheme, however the beige/off-white background is extremely bold. Staff recommends toning down the background color and reducing the amount of blank space on each sign. The monument sign locations as illustrated, in effect, situate two signs on one frontage; which is not permitted. Two signs are proposed on San Gorgonio Way and on San Rafael Avenue based on the way they are placed. Staff recommends reconfiguring this layout and continuing this case to GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\200"R091208min.doc Page 16 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE1W COMMISSION *#ale MINUTES December 8, 2009 allow the applicant time to review the items as discussed and re- submit new drawings. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the sign north most on San Rafael were a directional sign and not a monument sign it could settle this problem because people need to know where to turn. Mr. Bagato stated that they would have to look at the code in relation to directional signs versus monument signs, but that may be a potential solution that they can look at. Commissioner Touschner liked the simplicity of the signs but stated that 5' is wide and thought it should be a little thinner. She had more of an issue of two or three different graphics being used for the letters which appear to be different fonts. Mr. Jesse Cross, representative stated that it is the same font but one is a bolder version of the other. He duly noted her comments and stated that this is from Forest Lawn graphics and didn't know what they can do about it. Commissioner Gregory asked if this was a trademark logo and Larry from Forest Lawn stated that he didn't know, but it is the logo they are using on the letterhead and business cards. The Commission discussed the lettering, sizes, and colors and asked the applicant to take another look at that so the words are not stretched out. Mr. Cross stated that they are within the square footage of what is allowed on a monument sign. Commissioner Lambell agreed that the graphics need to be less wide and not as tall. Commissioner Van Wet asked if the sign on San Pablo was a one- sided sign and asked why they were not making it double-sided because that is the main access. Mr. Cross stated that it gets good exposure there and it has worked in the past. The Commission asked where the entrance was and Mr. Cross stated that it was on San Rafael. The Commission reviewed the proposed signage and locations. Ms. Grisa stated that most people will be accessing the center from San Pablo coming north or south so that sign could be changed to a double-sided sign and then the two signs on San Rafael and San Gorgonio could be directional signs. That could solve the problem of having two signs on one frontage. The Commission and staff discussed the issue with having two signs on one frontage. Mr. Cross stated that having two smaller signs as directionals would work if they fall within code. Commissioner Levin suggested a single-sided sign parallel with San Rafael. Commissioner Lambell suggested one monument sign GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200"R091208min.doc Page 17 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION *"of MINUTES December 8, 2009 on San Pablo, one directional sign on the corner of San Rafael and another directional sign further down. Ms. Grisa asked if the Commission was okay with the design of the sign and Commissioner Gregory stated that it was okay with the suggestion made by Commissioner Touschner to create some airspace around the verbiage. Mr. Cross asked if the directional sign on San Rafael would be single or double-sided. Commissioner Lambell felt they wouldn't get anyone coming southbound on San Rafael so it should be single-sided. Commissioner Touschner discussed the text again and suggested that they revise the word "entrance" to make it a word that comes together. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) double-sided monument sign on corner of San Pablo and San Gorgonio; 2) one directional sign corner of San Gorgonio and San Rafael; 3) one single-sided directional sign parallel to San Rafael; 3) reducing text on monument sign to create more airspace; and 4) revising the word "entrance" so it isn't so spread out. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-313 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of signage; Revitalization Plan for El Paseo Drive. LOCATION: El Paseo ZONE: GC, SP, OP GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\200MR081206min.doc Page 18 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION N"O MINUTES December 8, 2009 ACTION: No action taken due to lack of quorum. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Wet, seconded by Commissioner Touschner to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 3-0-0-3, with Commissioners Gregory, Lambell and Vuksic absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. TONY 6AGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:TlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR091208min.doc Page 19 of 19 `'err✓ �'` -