Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-24 r �1rlr ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES Revised (pg 12*) March 24, 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 5 1 Chris Van Vliet X 5 1 John Vuksic X 6 Karel Lambell X 6 Pam Touschner X 5 1 Allan Levin X 2 Vacancy Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 10, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the March 10, 2009 meeting minutes with changes. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVII COMMISSION ' MINUTES March 24, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GROWERS MARKET, 73-196 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage; Growers Market. LOCATION: 73-196 Highway 111 ZONE: C.I. Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. Staff believes the awning and signage would considerably upgrade the appearance of the building. Staff has no concerns with the awning or how it relates to the building. Businesses fronting more than one right of way are allowed the authorized sign area for each street which it faces or one main wall sign per street. In addition, more signage can be placed on awnings upon approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Growers Market has three signs located on the proposed awning; two on the frontage road, Palm Desert Drive North and one on San Marcos Avenue. The applicant is well under their allowable signage area limits and three signs do not seem to overwhelm the awning. Furthermore, since there is no space above the awnings for additional wall signage, the three signs across the awning seem to be a reasonable request. However, staff would like to see the two signs along the south side more evenly spaced. Although it appears the applicant is trying to get the business name directly over the door, it does not seem necessary in that exact location in this case. Staff would recommend moving the two south facing boxes of text to the east so that all three signs are evenly spaced, yet the east facing sign remains between the two palm trees for visibility. This would push the far west sign away from very edge of the awning. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the black awning would fade. Mr. Ernie Burkes, sign representative stated that the fabric contains formaldehyde and it would be years before they will need to change it out. Commissioner Touschner asked if the building was going to GAPlanningVanine Judy\Word Files\N Minutes\2009WR090324minrevised.doc Page 2 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 remain a bluish gray color and Mr. Burkes stated this was what was being presented at this time. Commissioner Touschner had some concerns with how accurate the drawings were and asked if it was really measured and drawn to scale. Mr. Bagato said that the drawing was more accurate than the rendering. After discussing the locations of the awning signs the Commission suggested leaving the sign as indicated on San Marcos and slide everything else down. They also asked if the sign needed to be over the door. Mr. Burkes replied that if the Commission recommends that it be moved to balance it out, he didn't think the applicant would have a problem with it. Commissioner Touschner stated that if anything was being placed on the glass doors then probably having "Grower's Market" right over the entrance isn't so necessary and having three signs evenly spaced on the awning as a design element probably makes more sense. Commissioner Touschner asked if the awning would have enough height to cover the HVAC units. Mr. Burkes stated that the awning will be going above the fascia board by two feet with brackets in the back that will go down on the roof. She expressed that the Commission and the applicant need to coordinate that these units are hidden and to make sure they are high enough to hide the units. Commissioner Touschner stated that between the color of the awning and the dark tint on the windows the building resembled a night club and said they now have the opportunity to jazz it up. The Commission discussed the heavy tint on the windows and thought the applicant would want clear windows so people can see what was going on inside. The Commission discussed the color of the building and stated that they have the opportunity to bring some freshness to the color. Mr. Bagato said they couldn't force someone to repaint their building unless there is a maintenance issue. Commissioner Lambell stated that they weren't talking about repainting the building it was more that the awning color be something different than black because they are missing an opportunity to have it look fresh, new, and clean. Commissioner Touschner asked if Mr. Bagato could ask the building owner if he was planning on repainting it. Mr. Burkes stated that if the building owner repaints the building then he could GAPlanningWanine Judy\Ward Files\A Minutes\2009WR090324minrevised.doc Page 3 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVII COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 coordinate a different awning color and bring samples for staff's review. He asked if it would be acceptable to the Commission to approve the awning framework today and not worry about the color at this point. Commissioner Touschner stated that the shape of the awning was okay, but wanted to make sure that the HVAC units will be hidden. Commissioner Touschner asked if the street numbers for the building would appear on the awning. Mr. Burkes stated that they normally put the street numbers on the awning, but did not know about this one. Mr. Bagato suggested that this be continued in order to ask the building owner for additional information on sign details and colors. Commissioner Touschner stated that she would make a motion to approve the shape of the awning only. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Levin to grant approval of the awning shape as presented given height of the awning will adequately hide the HVAC units. Signage detail, building color and awning color were continued until additional information can be presented. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Van Vliet and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-87 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to add six panel antennas to existing monopalm. LOCATION: 77-890 Country Club Drive ZONE: S.I. Mr. Swartz presented the project and said that the applicant was not in attendance. This is an existing monopalm and the applicant is proposing to add six panel antennas. This monopalm was approved years ago with the antennas on the outside and typically staff doesn't come across those today because they are concealed in the trunk. He suggested approval with the addition of new palm fronds to help screen the antennas. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090324minrevised.doc Page 4 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION �.rr MINUTES March 24, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic asked if this would be an opportunity for them to add one or two palm trees at that location because it is looking very weak. Mr. Swartz stated that the previous monopalm was approved for only two palm trees and pointed out the locations where the new palm trees could be installed. The Commission reviewed the plans for the locations of the live palm trees. Commissioner Touschner had trouble with the plans and stated that in the drawing it appears that the palm trees remain, but in the plans the new enclosure is over the existing palm tree. It seems to her that it is really tight where four pieces of equipment will be located against the walls and didn't know if that would work. She had some concerns with maintenance and thought that the plans were not drawn correctly. Mr. Swartz previously advised the applicant that they would not be able to relocate any of the existing palm trees since it is part of the Conditional Use Permit from the previous monopalm. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated the tree would not survive relocation because it has already been relocated twice. Since the cost to relocate the tree would be about the same to buy one of similar size and height she suggested a new one, which would have a guarantee. The Commission reviewed and discussed the location of the equipment. Commissioner Touschner was concerned that there were things shown on the plans that may be planned for the future and what would they be requesting then. Commissioner Vuksic asked staff if they knew how much flexibility the applicant has with the equipment location. He suggested that staff give some direction to the applicant regarding the quantity and location of the palm trees and locating equipment further back on the property. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case Misc 09-87 to allow staff to give direction to the applicant regarding maintenance issues; i.e., addition of palm fronds to existing tree; addition of live palm trees and approval of their locations; relocation of a live palm tree; and pushing equipment further back from the curb. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Van Vliet and Gregory absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090324minrevised.doc Page 5 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIV COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 3. CASE NO: MISC 09-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN PERRY, 73-341 Erin Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a recreational vehicle (RV) behind a gate in the side yard driveway. LOCATION: 73-341 Erin Street ZONE: R-1, 9000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and said that the applicant is requesting to park a nine-foot-six-inch high recreational vehicle (RV) in their side yard driveway behind a six-foot high gate. The measured height of nine-foot-six-inch is to the highest point on the RV as can be seen in the photos with the majority of the RV length slightly below this height. The gate blocking the RV view from the front continues around and connects to a side yard wooden fence that adequately screens the RV from the street and adjacent neighbor. Ms. Grisa mentioned that the neighborhood was Noticed and one call was received in favor of the RV as long as it is screened, and one letter from a neighbor that asked several questions regarding the RV issue that she addressed in returned correspondence. The exposed height above the fence line and gate is approximately three feet and the RV appears to be right at the front roof line of the house. The code reads the vehicle should not project beyond the front roof line of the house. Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Recreational Vehicles on Private Property, states the measurement of a recreation unit shall not exceed twelve feet in height which this RV falls under as measured to its highest point of nine-foot-six-inches. Furthermore, this chapter states that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve and issue a permit to park a RV in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots and public streets. Staff believes the location and screening is adequate as the RV exists in the current photographs. The maximum wall height in residential zones is six feet along the GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090324minrevised.doc Page 6 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 property line unless further screening is approved by the ARC. Staff is recommending approval of the request to park a recreational vehicle in the side yard of the property. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was anyone in attendance that objects to the RV. None was noted. Mr. John Perry, applicant stated that he was surprised to learn that he needed a permit to park the RV in the side yard, so he is doing everything to keep it neat and tidy. He also stated that the RV spends the summers up north. Commissioner DeLuna asked if he was using the RV for occupancy and was it hooked up to power or sewage. Mr. Perry answered no. Commissioner Touschner stated that the RV was well screened and pushed back on the property and said this is one of the best screened RVs that they have seen in a long while. A motion was made by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve. Commissioner Vuksic asked for clarification of the roofline and asked if it took into account the roofline of the neighbor. Mr. Bagato stated that the roofline is not related to the height. The roofline aspect is that the RV is not supposed to be past the roof line from a setback for the house. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the way the ordinance is worded it says, "...not project beyond the front roofline." Mr. Bagato stated that the city's requirement is a twelve-foot high home which would then conflict because not everyone will have a twelve-foot high home; they could have a ten-foot high home. The RV ordinance says you can have a twelve-foot high RV. He said that he would get some clarity on this issue. Mr. Bagato mentioned on a side note that Commissioner Gregory at the last meeting requested staff to get some clarity to the code regarding Recreation Vehicles to make it easier on staff and the Commission to approve RVs. He suggested that at the end of the meeting a motion be made to request staff to investigate for clearer standards. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Van Vliet and Gregory absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090324minrevised.doc Page 7 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIIV COMMISSION ' MINUTES March 24, 2009 4. CASE NO: MISC 09-112 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DANNY MUIR, 74041 Velardo Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a recreational vehicle (RV) in the side yard driveway. LOCATION: 74-041 Velardo Drive ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Swartz presented the project and said this was a request to park an RV on the front side yard. There is currently no block wall in the front of the RV and no way that the applicant could put a block wall with the current ordinance, which is a six foot wall at twenty feet back. The code does allow that RVs can be parked in the front with Architectural Review approval. He presented photos of the RV and pointed out that it is visible as you are traveling north on Velardo. The RV is not visible as you are traveling south on Velardo because the home is blocking it. There is some landscaping on the neighbor's side, but no landscaping on the applicant's property to block the RV. Mr. Swartz indicated that this was Noticed and no correspondence was received. Mr. Danny Muir, applicant stated that this was the normal resting point for the RV and has been there for years. He indicated that at this time he has no other place to store it. It is hooked up to electricity to maintain the battery and the refrigerator, it is not hooked up to plumbing and it is not used as a temporary residence. He talked with his neighbor's and they do not have any complaints with it. He stated that he could put a fence in front of it if that would help. The Commission reviewed the photos and asked for the height of the RV. Mr. Muir indicated that it was about nine feet and didn't stand above the roof of the house. Commissioner Touschner stated that it would look better if it was pushed further back on the property and expressed her concern that it was so visible on the one side. Mr. Muir stated that he could possibly push it back another foot, but then it would be too hard to get out of the RV. He GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\NMinutes\2009\AR090324minrevised.doc Page 8 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 explained that the house does not sit square on the lot. Commissioner Touschner stated that if there were three or four palm trees on the neighbor's yard, it would help screen it a lot. She didn't know how else to screen it given his constraints. Commissioner Lambell asked how it could be adequately screened and Commissioner Levin read the code's description, be screened from adjacent lots and streets by a solid fence, wall, gate, door, shrubbery, hedge, or combination thereof to the satisfaction of the architecture review commission. Mr. Swartz stated that there would be no way to screen it from the front with our code; the applicant could only do a little three foot wall based on where his property line is with the right of way. The Commission and the applicant discussed making a gate in front of the RV, but decided it was the side that was the main problem. Mr. Muir said that if this is something that will be objectionable he is prepared to move it, but expressed that this is the most convenient place for him. He totally understands the Commission's decision and said his motorhome has been sitting there for three years. Mr. Swartz stated that this was brought to staff's attention by Code Enforcement after driving through the neighborhood. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission doesn't like looking at RV cases but they understand that it is difficult for the applicant to put it somewhere else. These are tough situations and the Commission has to make determinations whether they are adequately screened or how it could be adequately screened. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to deny Case No. MISC 09-112 due to a lack of adequate screening. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Van Vliet and Gregory absent. G1P1anning\Jan1ne Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090324minrevised.doc Page 9 of 12 "1111 ARCHITECTURAL REVIU COMMISSION ' MINUTES March 24, 2009 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE: MISC 09-120 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Ave Ste 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new commercial building and landscaping; Parcel 4 at the Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-957 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ Ms. Grisa presented the project and said that the applicant is requesting approval of a new building and landscaping to be constructed upon Parcel 4 at The Village at University Park. This building will create two interior tenant spaces. One tenant space will occupy 1,200 square feet of the entire building as an ice cream store. The second tenant space will occupy 2,400 square feet of the building as a convenience store. To the side of the ice cream store, a small outdoor gathering space has been designed for seventeen additional seats. The submitted landscape plan will need minor revisions. Since this area had an overall plan approved to meet the fifteen percent site coverage of landscaping, staff requires that all landscaping already installed be protected in place. If minimal amounts of landscape are relocated or removed, equal plantings will have to be replaced so that the water calculations equal the previously approved plan. The size of the hardscape area on the west side of the building will also need to be reduced so previously approved landscaping can be replaced with similar plantings requiring the same watering needs. Staff believes that the building is approvable as shown. All of the architectural forms coincide nicely with the rest of the development and is a well-designed building. The materials and colors chosen fit the desert color scheme and will suit the building well and the landscape changes can be addressed and approved at an over- the-counter level. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090324minrevised.doc Page 10 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 Mr. Bagato asked the applicant if he discussed the signage requirements with the tenants prior to submitting their applications. Mr. John Vuksic, architect answered that he had. Commissioner Touschner asked how the HVAC units were accessed and if the elements would be high enough to hide the units. Mr. Vuksic said there was a roof access down below and the element would be high enough to hide the units. He explained to the Commission how the elements will hide the units. The Commission discussed the proposed signage and their locations. Mr. Bagato stated that the north and south elevations would get two signs and the east and west elevations would get only one. Commissioner Touschner said that the east does look a little tight with two signs and suggested reducing the number of signs on the east side of the building to one, which will be the ice cream shop. The Commission reviewed and discussed the colors for the building. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to approve the project subject to: 1) adequate screening of HVAC units; and 2) reducing the number of signs on the east side of the building to one. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Van Vliet and Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: ZOA 09-104 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new comprehensive sign program for the City. Mr. Bagato presented a staff report and a slide presentation regarding the Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment updating and revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56, Signs. The current signage ordinance has not had a comprehensive update since the City of Palm Desert was first incorporated. The new signage ordinance will provide staff and the business community with a user-friendly tool for designing and constructing WPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090324minrevised.doc Page 11 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL RENNIN COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2009 signs. The new ordinance also provides standards for current signage issues that have been raised by the business community and general public. These signs are being reviewed and discussed by the Signage Subcommittee. Staff is recommending that the Architectural Review Commission make a recommendation of approval of the new sign ordinance as proposed. *ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue to the next meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. *NOTE: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin to request staff to review other jurisdictions' requirements for RV standards and make modifications to the City's current standards to give clearer and more defined standards for review and approval and submit for City Council's consideration. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. TONY B GATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090324minrevised.doc Page 12 of 12