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