Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-23 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES June 23, 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 11 1 Chris Van Vliet X 11 1 John Vuksic X 12 Karel Lambell X 12 Pam Touschner X 9 3 Allan Levin X 7 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Frank Taylor, resident of Palm Desert addressed the Commission regarding recreational vehicles. He has lived in the Palm Desert Country Club for almost twenty five years and has seen it move forward on many occasions and backwards on several occasions. He feels that there are issues with the RV ordinance within the City and would like to ask the Planning Commission and the City Council to place a moratorium on approving any future RVs until the ordinance is dealt with. In the Palm Desert Country Club area there are homes that have been "grandfathered" in and his main concern is number of RVs out there. He is a RV owner himself; however he pays for a storage facility. He said that the City of Palm Desert as a whole is exceptional in certain areas, but felt that the RVs can cause blight in some areas and is something that should be addressed. He ARCHITECTURAL REVIi*W COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 presented several photos of RVs in different areas. The Commission reviewed the photos. He thought that RVs should be stored and not allowed to park in the City of Palm Desert. He stated that when you drive through the community and see these types of RVs it really degrades the way Palm Desert is looked at. Last week, Mr. Taylor came to the Project Area 4 Committee meeting regarding the golf course at the Palm Desert Country Club and heard people in attendance call Palm Desert Country Club a ghetto. This term has come up over the years and he is tired of hearing it called that. He thinks that RVs would not be allowed in the south end of the desert and they should not be allowed in the east. He presented an article from the newspaper regarding a fire on Chicory and Panorama referring to a RV parked next to a house that was plugged in, coming close to burning up a couple of houses. He thinks this adds to this whole issue and asked the Commission to request a moratorium on RVs until this can be reviewed and come up with an ordinance that encompasses the whole city and addresses a lot of these issues. He stated again that he is very concerned with the blight that this is causing. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated that staff did go to the last Council meeting and asked for their direction to revisit the existing ordinance and better define what is screening, what is not screening, and what is acceptable. They directed staff to go ahead and work on that. She informed the Commission that if they would like to make a suggestion to the City Council to consider a moratorium while staff is revisiting the existing ordinance they can make a recommendation and take it to the City Council. She stated that this would allow staff to continue processing applications for screening while this research is going on. Commission Levin asked if everyone without an approved permit would have to remove their RVs from their property. Ms. Aylaian answered that there is already an ordinance that says you can't park your RV without having screening and the screening has to be approved by the ARC. In the event that a moratorium were passed, staff would not approve anymore screening and anyone coming in with a new RV would not be able to keep it at their home because they would not be able to get an acceptable screen constructed. Staff will continue with code enforcement efforts. The Commission discussed the moratorium and Ms. Aylaian stated that you only declare moratoriums when you need to study an issue further and you are thinking about revising an ordinance. She guessed that it would take about three to six months of research and getting input from other communities on their ordinances. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\A Minutes\2009\AR090623min.doc Page 2 of 12 i ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 Commissioner Gregory asked about the request for a moratorium. Ms. Aylaian stated that the Architectural Review Commission cannot declare a moratorium, but the Commission can pass along a recommendation to the City Council that they declare a moratorium date. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the moratorium was considered would things remain status quo or would all the non-permitted RVs have to be removed. Ms. Aylaian stated that the only things the moratorium could address would be new applications for the screening. If there are existing RVs there that are not screened those can continue to be addressed by Code Enforcement and if they are cited they would have to move the RV off their property. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission has gotten more stringent on approving RVs. The Commission has been opposing more of them because they look unnatural and can be an eyesore. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it were possible not to allow RVs at all unless they are completely enclosed. Ms. Aylaian stated that there are some communities that do not allow RVs to be parked on the parcels. When the Council addressed this in the past, there was conversation if they wanted people to park RVs at their homes and they were not prepared to say no. They wanted to allow people to do that but they wanted it to look good and so they required the screening. She stated that Palm Desert has a high number of RVs per capita and in the Coachella Valley in general, and to move the community from where we are now to one that does not allow them to be parked at home would be a policy decision made by the City Council. Commissioner Touschner stated that her expectation is that whatever gets decided would raise the bar up a notch from even the self regulation that the Commission imposes on themselves now. She is concerned with approving something that looks okay now and then six months from now the new ordinance is so strict the RV wouldn't have passed. Commissioner Levin asked what Code is doing now regarding parking an RV on the street. Mr. Pedro Rodriquez, code officer stated that the RVs on the street are permitted for loading or unloading, however a permit is needed if in excess of 72-hour. After 72-hours they will need a permit which Code Enforcement issues in increments of 72-hours or up to eighteen days per calendar year. If it is a travel trailer or boat, it has to remain attached to the vehicle at all times, if not that is a citable offense even with a permit. Commissioner Levin asked about the stipulations regarding hookups. Mr. Rodriquez stated that this is permitted per the RV ordinance. Commissioner Gregory concurred with Mr. Taylor and said that he had some excellent points. He asked the Commission if there was general consensus that GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090623min.doc Page 3 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIN COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 this be discussed at the next meeting where they can make a motion recommending that it go to Council. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Gregory asked if anyone else had anything they would like to address. Seeing none the Commission moved on with the Agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 9, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the June 9, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0. V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 08-308 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WARE MALCOMB ARCHITECT, 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; The California Teachers' Association. LOCATION: 75-084 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Ms. Grisa presented final construction drawings for The California Teachers' Association (CTA). She stated that the CTA building came through Architectural Review Commission (ARC) November/December of 2008 and is here for final review. The plans have been reviewed by staff and the applicant is meeting the conditions of approval and landscape will need final approval. After she reviewed the plans, she requested that the applicant submit a new color sample for the awning. Ms. Grisa said that when it originally came through ARC there were panel doors at the parapets to screen the view of the HVAC units, but when it went through Building and Safety those door were removed; so she requested a drawing showing that they would be completely screened again. She also pointed out that they used to have an ADA ramp railing that went all the way down, but it has been cut short; which looks better. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090623min.doc Page 4 of 12 i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 Ms. Grisa also pointed out the differences in detail for the recess of the shade structure awning. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a reason why it doesn't sit back like the other ones and expressed that it may be a drawing error. The Commission reviewed the windows, the metal awnings, and the frame. Ms. Grisa stated that the elevations are shown the same way they are drawn on the roof plan. The Commission reviewed the elevations and the height of the parapets and Commissioner Vuksic stated that you would see the openings on the south elevation. He suggested that they create an opening in those parapets walls and allow the top of the parapet to be continuous if they didn't want the gates. Mr. Mike Pauley, architect stated that there is a hollow metal door frame that's going to be the same height at the top of the parapet that goes down to the bottom where the opening is underneath the screen. So viewed from the side it will look continuous. Commissioner Touschner asked if the carports were next to the building and Mr. Pauley answered that they were away from the building. Ms. Grisa stated that the carports were not a part of the original proposal; however they will bring them forward. Mr. Pauley stated that there are two options on the carports and asked the Commission for their comments on either one of them. The Commission reviewed the drawings and the materials that will be used. Ms. Grisa stated that if the posts interfere with any of the landscaping, the Landscape Specialist would have to see the revisions. Mr. Pauley indicated that they were thinking about going with Photovoltaic so it would be a thin film PV system on top of it. Commissioner Touschner wanted to take a look at the ADA railing. The Commission reviewed the changes that were made and felt that it would work. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant approval subject to including the revised HVAC screening. Motion carried 6-0 GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090623min.doc Page 5 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVItW COMMISSION "000 MINUTES June 23, 2009 2. CASE NO: PP/CUP 08-241 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RON HENDERSON & MICHAEL JOHNSTON, 73708 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; Farmer's Insurance Building. LOCATION: 74-426 Alessandro ZONE: R3 (4) Mr. Swartz presented construction drawings for final approval of the Farmer's Insurance Building. He stated that this came through Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in September 2008 and was approved by Planning Commission in October 2008. Mr. Swartz said that the ARC Notice of Action was to recess the window and not flushed with the walls. The Commission reviewed the plans and Mr. Skip Lynch, architect stated they made the windows smaller and blocking has been added to fill in the detail. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the architect misunderstood their intent on recessing the windows. He explained that they were to recess the windows so that there was some amount of return where the wall looked like it had some thickness to it. He asked if the Commission at the meeting in September were a little more specific with their recommendation than just recessing the windows. The Notice of Action from the meeting of September 11, 2008 was presented to the Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Vuksic clarified the recommendations: 1) recess windows and not flushed with walls; 2) take form back onto existing roof to wall of storage room and block it out on both the front and rear elevations; 3) match colors as they wrap around building on each elevation; and 4) subject to landscape approval. Commissioner Lambell clarified that according to the minutes it states that the walls needed to be recessed more so that they aren't flushed with the walls. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a window detail and Mr. Lynch indicated that there are individual window details on some of the engineering where they have masonry. Commissioner Vuksic GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\200MR090623min.doc Page 6 of 12 t ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 stated after reviewing the plans that there isn't anything that shows that it is set back. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how thick the window frame was and Mr. Lynch stated that it was typically two to three inches. Commissioner Vuksic requested that the architect submit something to staff showing specific details of the wall and said that it needed to be setback as far as it will go. Mr. Lynch stated that they could make the inside frame flush. The Commission reviewed the parapet walls and stated that the roof looked okay. Commissioner Touschner asked about the request to match colors as they wrap around building on each elevation and Mr. Lynch stated that there was an error in the color when they did the first rendering so the new rendering shows the corrected drafting error. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to staff's review and approval of revised window detail showing setbacks. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: RV 09-263 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DWAYNE THIESSEN, 74-220 Goleta Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park an RV on a side yard. LOCATION: 74-220 Goleta Avenue ZONE: R1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park an approximately twelve-foot high by eight-foot-six-inch wide by thirty-seven-foot long recreational vehicle (RV) in the west side yard of a residence. The RV would reside in the west side yard with a roughly six to seven- foot high wood fence to the west, the side face of the house to the east, and an approximately six-foot high wrought iron, outdoor fabric covered gate facing the street. With the RV in place, there is approximately one-foot between the RV and the fence on the west GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR090623min.doc Page 7 of 12 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIV COMMISSION w� , MINUTES June 23, 2009 side and one-foot between the RV and the house on the east side. It is positioned slightly behind the front face of the house extending beyond and above the front roof line of the house. The requested position of this RV would leave the unit largely exposed to the street and adjacent neighboring properties. Only 50% of the unit would be screened from the street behind a six-foot high wrought iron gate covered with an outdoor fabric which is not suitable or acceptable. The parking of a RV in a side yard must be screened from adjacent lots and streets by a solid fence, wall, gate, door, shrubbery, hedge or combination thereof to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. One public comment in opposition of the RV has been received in response to the mailed legal notice to property owners within 300 feet of the applicant's property. Staff is not recommending approval to park this RV in the side yard due to inadequate screening from adjacent lots and the public street. Mr. Dwayne Thiessen, applicant stated that he placed the shade material there and didn't know that it wasn't an approved material. He stated that he is a first time home buyer and he would be happy to do whatever is acceptable in order to comply with the city's requirements. He wanted to clarify the portion that needs to be covered; the portion on the side of the house or the portion facing the street. Ms. Grisa stated that the portion facing the street and the RV appears to be thirty-seven feet long and a large portion is viewable from the neighbor to the west. Commissioner Levin stated that the comment in opposition states that gross vehicular weight over 10,000 pounds is not allowed. Mr. Pedro Rodriquez, code officer stated that this doesn't apply to RVs. Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem is a relatively large vehicle without adequate screening unless you put up a massive wall. One of the problems is the vagueness of the ordinance and that is why the request was made earlier to revisit the ordinance and temporarily place a moratorium on the RVs. When you look at the photos from different angles, the RV is really big and it looms over the fence and one of things that the Commission is charged with is to avoid that. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the applicant has a great looking house, but felt that there wasn't enough room on the side yard to screen the RV properly. Mr. Thiessen asked for the definition of adequate screening; was it a wall, shrub, or hedge. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR090623min.doc Page 8 of 12 i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 Commissioner Touschner stated that it's something where you cannot see an RV or recognize that there is a RV behind it. Mr. Thiessen thought most RVs would tower over a six-foot fence. The Commission said that the homes themselves work as a screen and a really large lot would have substantial room to hide it. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is an example where the moratorium would be helpful until the city gets things in writing so it's clear. Commissioner Lambell also expressed that the house was great looking and the fence is a huge improvement to the neighborhood, but she felt that the RV did not improve his home as a visual piece of art. It's too big to be stuffed into that tiny little area between the wood fence and the edge of the eave. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission was ready to make some type of resolution on this matter. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he couldn't see any other choice but to deny the request. He made a motion for denial and Commissioner Lambell seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked for discussion. He stated that he was curious with respect to the upcoming moratorium if it indeed happens how the denial now would affect the applicant's chances later. This applicant is one of the people who are caught in the cross hairs of a potential change. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a period of time before an applicant could re-apply. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated that the applicant would have to wait one year before reapplying for a project that has been previously considered. If the moratorium provides better language and it explains how it can be screened appropriately he could come back with those modifications and apply for that even with the denial. Commissioner Gregory just wanted to make sure that he is not punished if the result of the moratorium becomes softer. Commissioner Levin said that if the applicant withdraws the application and puts it in storage until this is resolved, he could then come back. Ms. Aylaian asked if he had another place that he could put the RV in the interim and Mr. Thiessen stated that he would have to put it in storage. Commissioner Levin stated that unfortunately it's going to be either way, if he gets a denial he will GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20MAR090623min.doc Page 9 of 12 y ARCHITECTURAL REVI N COMMISSION *NO, MINUTES June 23, 2009 have to put it in storage anyway. Ms. Aylaian stated that he has the option of appealing to the City Council or withdrawing the application and moving the RV to storage and bringing it back at a later date. ACTION: The applicant withdrew his applicant and no action was taken. 4. CASE NO: RV 09-074 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRISTY DONOHUE, 73-364 Salt Cedar Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request for storing a travel trailer on property. LOCATION: 73-364 Salt Cedar Street ZONE: R-1 12,000 Ms. Grisa presented this project and stated that this project was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant time to sell the trailer that was being stored on her side yard. At the present time, staff has been advised that the trailer has been sold and the applicant is retracting this case. Staff recommends that a motion be made to dismiss this issue pending receipt of written confirmation. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to dismiss Case No. RV 09-074 pending staff's receipt of written confirmation that the RV has been sold and removed from property. Motion carried 6-0. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, adding Case No. SA 09-273 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090623min.doc Page 10 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2009 5. CASE NO: SA 09-273 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HK LANE, 72-895 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument signs; HK Lane LOCATION: 72-895 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant submitted a proposal for a monument sign located on Fred Waring. There is a monument sign there currently from a previous tenant and the applicant is changing this sign. The monument is six feet in height and they are adding stucco blocks to match the building. Staff feels that the block looks too high and out of proportion and a slogan appears which is not allowed. Staff recommends removing one course of block and to continue this case to allow the applicant to modify the plans. Commissioner Touschner agreed that the block height seems out of proportion and was wondering if there would be multiple tenants where they would add another slot. She stated that the sign and the white bar don't line up with scoring of the block and they should align. The Commission reviewed the plans and the scoring. Commissioner Levin asked if they could put "Real Estate" at the end and Mr. Swartz stated that it could be there, it is just the slogan that is not permitted. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case SA 09-273 subject to moving signage up to align with scoring on blocks. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: None GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090623min.doc Page 11 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEN COMMISSION 466e MINUTES June 23, 2009 C. Miscellaneous Items: VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. KEVIN SWARTZ ASSISTANT PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090623min.doc Page 12 of 12