Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-10 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 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 18 2 Chris Van Vliet X 19 1 John Vuksic X 19 1 Karel Lambell X 19 1 Pam Touschner X 15 5 Allan Levin X 14 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the October 13, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REftW COMMISSION `9e MINUTES November 10, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-15/CUP 07-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING LLC, 220 Concourse Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to add a pet park, bocce ball courts, and sidewalk to the fire lane and to revise the landscaping to the approved site plan; Oakmont Senior Living. LOCATION: 73-050 Country Club Drive ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The site was previously approved by the City Council for 121 senior community care and healthcare units. The applicant is proposing to add a sidewalk to the existing fire lane, a pet park, bocce ball courts, and revisions to the landscaping. The addition of the sidewalk has been preliminary reviewed by the Fire Specialist. The sidewalk must be 6" thick with steel reinforcing, it must be able to hold 80,000 lbs., and be flush with the desert landscaping. The added pet park and bocce ball courts are located within the block wall and are not visible from the street. Landscaping needs to be removed and replaced to make room for the pet park and bocce ball courts. The landscape plans have been reviewed by the Landscape Specialist and she feels the new landscaping plan is adequate. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the landscaping for the pet park and bocce ball courts. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager explained the plant materials and suggested that they consolidate the planting area into one planter adjacent to hardscape. Mr. Bagato stated that their major concern was the street frontage for potential offset because of the trees and massing of the buildings. They wanted to make sure that they had some vertical landscaping in there from the Monterey/Country Club perspective. GAPIanningWanineJudy\WordRes\AMinutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 2 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RE1tW COMMISSION *400# MINUTES November 10, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) adjustment in planters for bocce park; 2) addition .of two 60" ash trees in the pet park; and 3) sidewalk to meet the Fire Department's requirements. Motion carried 5-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-398 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): XENOPHON DEVELOPMENT, 47-777 El Agadir, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to build a new residential home and garage over the required 35% lot coverage allowed in R-1 zones. LOCATION: 73-605 Pitahaya ZONE: R1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. This home is horizontally profiled in mass with a rectilinear flat roof. The highest roof dimension would be at 13', layering down to 10'. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,105 square foot residential home including a 519 square foot garage. The lot is 7,175 square feet. Maximum building site coverage for this zone is 35%. The total site coverage for the proposed home and garage is 44%. Section 25.16.080 of the City's municipal code allows the lot coverage to be increased to 50% subject to Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and approval. Items for ARC consideration are building setbacks and compatibility with the neighborhood. The proposed home meets all building setbacks. Many of the other homes in the neighborhood meet the 35% lot .coverage. Staff feels that the proposed home at 44% lot coverage is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed home will visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the existing neighborhood. At its meeting of October 13, 2009 the ARC reviewed this project. The Commission generally supported the design, but had a few comments. The ARC requested that the applicant provide a detailed roof plan showing the location of the condensers. There was discussion regarding setbacks. Since that meeting, staff has granted the applicant an adjustment to the side yard setbacks, as provided for by 25.16.090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Staff recommends approval of the proposed home at 44% lot coverage. GAPIanningWanineJu4\WordFiles\AWinutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 3 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION %mile MINUTES November 10, 2009 The Commission reviewed the roof plan and discussed the HVAC units and ducting system. Mr. Tom McArthur, applicant indicated that it would not be a split system and the condensers would not be on the ground. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the parapets on the roof and said the details looked odd sticking up 12", stopping, and then the center portion slopes off. He wondered why the architect wouldn't just continue the parapet around it and put internal roof drains on it. He felt the detailing was insufficient and reminded the Commission that at the last meeting the applicant indicated he would eliminate the metal and stucco it. Mr. McArthur stated that he could do that. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that if they have concerns with the plans they can request that the applicant submit construction drawings prior to getting permitted. The Commission discussed the side yard setbacks and Mr. Bagato stated that they have already approved some minor adjustments to comply with code. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission felt comfortable that the applicant has addressed the issue of non- conformance to site coverage. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he wasn't bothered by the coverage, he was bothered by the architecture of the house and that it be detailed properly. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the revisions were fairly significant and said that they could change the roof parapet and have it continue all the way around with internal roof drains. He asked Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner for their comments from an architectural standpoint. Commissioner Vuksic said with that detail it does need to be carried around to all four sides to close the form. He said that the roof plan was not drawn correctly. Commissioner Touschner said that it doesn't match the elevation and recommended that the applicant submit a clear roof plan. Mr. Mike Mendoza, architect arrived late to the meeting and Commissioner Van Vliet informed him that the Commission was concerned with the parapet. The Commission and the architect reviewed and discussed the roof plan. Commissioner Vuksic explained to the applicant that the Commission reviews it from an aesthetic point of view and the roof plan was difficult to read. Commissioner Van Vliet again stated his suggested to continue the parapet up 12" and putting internal roof drains in there. Mr. Mendoza said that he can make the changes to the parapet and put roof drains on each of the corners to make it more uniform all the way around. GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\200PAR091110min.doc Page 4 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION �r MINUTES November 10, 2009 The Commission reviewed and discussed the enclosure screen around the parapet and suggested it be removed because it wasn't aligning with anything. Commissioner Vuksic was looking at the right side elevation and all three forms and said that the architect may want to integrate that form into the roof line. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the ducting would get from one side of the house to another. Mr. Mendoza said that there are drop offs in the soffits inside the building. Commissioner Touschner asked the architect to consider other options, for instance having the HVAC more centrally located. Commissioner Vuksic explained to Mr. Mendoza that the ducts cannot go on the roof and Mr. Mendoza said that everything would be concealed. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) parapet detail be carried around to all four sides with internal roof drains to enclose the form; 2) plaster fascia; 3) integrate mechanical equipment into the tallest mass of the house and be finished with plaster rather than metal; 4) access door for roof finished the same with plaster and flush with the plaster; and 5) staff to approve construction drawings. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: CUP 09-236 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A Subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., 3257 E. Guasti Road Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new 55' high monopalm T-Mobile telecommunications facility consisting of six panel antennas, two GPS antennas, one emergency generator, one parabolic antenna, six BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable running from the antennas to the BTS, power and telco utility connection. LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue ZONE: P.D. Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. She stated that this application was presented at the last ARC meeting for a 55' tall monopalm in an area inside of The Living Desert. The area the applicant is leasing is located just east of Portola Avenue sized at 13' by 34' totaling 442 square feet GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200"R091 1 10min.dm Page 5 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RE1tW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 surrounded by a block wall covered in stucco to match the adjacent buildings. The applicant is proposing the new monopalm to coincide with five new live palm trees at the heights and quantities of one at 30', two at 35', one at 40', and one at 45'. The 45' tree and one 35' tree would be immediately adjacent the proposed mono-palm with the other trees located across the dirt road adjacent to the proposed facility. This project was approved with conditions at the last Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting and is now returning for review due to the fact that the tree arrangement did not meet the applicant's objectives regarding cellular signal. Staff's main concern with the height of this mono-palm is the ability to disguise the structure due to its proximity to residential areas and the ability to blend the mono-palm in with the existing natural environment. The new layout proposed illustrates two trees near the mono-palm and three trees on the other side of the dirt road adjacent the facility. This layout disguises the mono-palm as one would view it from the west, but staff still has concerns regarding the views and ability to disguise the mono-palm driving north or south on Portola with such a large spacing between the proposed live trees. Staff has noted several discrepancies in the noted heights of these live mono-palms between the working drawings, landscape plans, and photo simulations. These would all need to coincide correctly before moving on to Planning Commission. Staff has confirmed the heights of these trees with the owner's representative; the five live palms are at the heights of 45', 35', 40', 35', and 30'. The last concern with this new set, along with the previous drawn elevations of the mono-palm, is how the palm frond head relates to the trunk of the tree. The mono-palm frond head appears to be dropped below the top of the tree trunk. Staff is concerned with how the antennae height that needs to be achieved will relate to the palm frond head as it appears on the drawings. The owner's representative confirmed that this detail will need to be modified, but in turn it appears as though the antennae would need to be moved further down or the palm frond may go beyond the approved 55' height. Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm would be compatible with adjacent properties with the approval by the Planning Commission to waive the separation requirement of 300'. Currently the monopalm is roughly 268'-1" from the nearest residence. The 55' height meets the standards in Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 Commercial Communication Tower and Commercial Antenna Regulations. With regard to landscape GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 6 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 requirements, the City's Landscape Specialist has not given preliminarily approval of the landscape plant materials, but recommends that the plans meet all planting and irrigation design requirements prior to obtaining construction permits. In order to assure the most preferred and efficient outcome plans should receive preliminary approval from the City's Landscape Specialist prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In addition to a landscape plan, grading and pad elevations for the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the height and the separation of the palms. Ms. Grisa presented photos of another monopalm grove located in the city and stated that the trees are all directly in line with the palm fronds and antennae, which don't seem to be a problem. T-Mobile thinks that these trees located immediately adjacent to their monopalm is going to obstruct the signal and decrease coverage area. Commissioner Touschner drove by St. Margaret's and said that it is successful because there is such a medley and separated. The two monopoles are clearly higher than everything else but because there is such a variation it just blends in and you don't notice it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that having one in the northwest corner would give it some transition back from the high tower. Commissioner Lambell felt that two of the palms looked disconnected from the monopalm and thought there must be a way for those two not to be so far away. Commissioner Gregory suggested adding one more 30' palm to the northwest corner and when they are planted the Landscape Specialists can observe the work and adjust it if need be. Ms. Grisa had a concern with the trunk of the tree with how it goes up to the top of the monopalm. The fronds have been dropped below it so it looks odd because they are trying to get the top antennae as high as they can and she was concerned that they would either have to lower the antennas to make that look correct or they would actually have it built this way. Ms. Monica Morreta, representative stated they can place another 30' high tree closer to the site. In regards to the elevation views, the actual height of the pole will be 45' with a separation of 5' between the pole and the fronds. The antennas will be at 43' because the antennas are inside the pole. The trunk of the palm will end at 45' and the fronds will be 10' above the tallest point of the pole; which is 55'. Her engineer stated that he wanted to have at least a 5' separation so GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR091110min.doc Page 7 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION «.ri MINUTES November 10, 2009 the antennas would be placed at the highest point which will be 50'. The overall height of the monopalm is 55' and the overall height of the pole is 50'; which is an overall separation of 5'. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager stated that one of the things that make St. Margaret's successful is that it is not all date palms. The only date palm is the cell tower and the rest are fan palms. The mass of the fan palms pull your eyes away from the cell tower because it creates a heavy mass below it. One of the difficulties with other cell tower installations that use date palm leaves is when they use other date palms, it just doesn't carry the same aesthetic value that St. Margaret's does. Commissioner Gregory said if the lower live palms were date palms he didn't think it would make any difference because they would still get all the massing. He said that what was important was that the tree distracts people's attention and that he didn't have a problem going with Washingtonian hybrids. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) adding one additional 30' palm tree on the NW corner; 2) real palms should be Washingtonian hybrids and actual height should be brown trunk foot; 3) tower needs to match the appearance of the monopalm at St. Margaret's and monopalm should remain shown as a date palm; 4) accurate layout of the palms need to be presented to staff for approval; and 5) staff to monitor the installation of the palms to ensure proper placement. Motion carried 6-0. 4. CASE NO: SA 09-400 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT, 9777 Wilshire Blvd Suite 918, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to construct four entry monument signs; Vineyards. LOCATION: 37-600 College Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that when first submitted the proposal was for four entry monument signs, but since that time the applicant has deleted one along College Drive. The landscape plans have been approved but since the corner will not be touched, the plans need to go ahead GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009tAR091110min.doc Page 8 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RE01W COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 with what was originally approved and be re-stamped prior to getting building permits. One sign will be located along College Drive at the main entrance, another on Cook Street and a third one along Frank Sinatra Drive. Currently, there are no monument signs located at this site. The monument sign located along College Drive is 4'-2" to the top of the concrete cap. The monument signs are angled stacked stone painted to match the existing palette with signage on the corner. The signage is a metal bronze plaque externally illuminated. The bronze plaque is V-8" x 5-5". The plans that were provided show two plaques, but the applicant is only allowed one plaque per monument sign. The monument signs on Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive are also 4'-2" to the top of the concrete cap, with a length of 8'-8". The monument signs are stacked stone painted to match existing palette. The signage is a metal bronze plaque externally illuminated. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans. Commissioner Touschner questioned the small font size for "luxury rentals" and asked if people would be able to see that and felt it be removed because if people can't see, then why have it. Mr. Jim Cross, representative thought it would serve to fill space. Mr. Cross proposed all three signs to be like Sign type C, which is basically a simple wall with the double-sided plaque on each side. He was certain that his client would agree that it is better to have visibility coming from both directions as opposed to just one. Then there would be three that are the same. They would use typical CMU and after adding stone on each side the wall would be about 10" and the cap would be out to 12". He preferred that the plaque be recessed into the wall, not all the way back, but pushed back to the lowest point of the varied heights. Commissioner Van Vliet wanted to know the thickness of the cap detail and Mr. Cross stated that it was about 3 to 3.5 inches and said that they would try to duplicate some architectural details on site. Commissioner Vuksic questioned the width of Sign C and felt that they should use 12" block with manufactured stone because it was quite a large monolithic mass which needs thickness. Mr. Cross agreed. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist suggested that a revised landscape plan be brought back for her review regarding the corner G;1PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Mlnute5\2009Wfl091110min.doc Page 9 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVVW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 of College Drive because there may be an opportunity to add more landscaping in that area. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) the only sign to be used is Sign C with bronze plaques on both sides and used in the three locations as described; 2) 12" thick concrete block used to construct the sign and clad with manufactured stone as shown; with a cap 3" to 4" thick; and 3) revised landscape plans to match approved plans and reviewed by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 5. CASE NO: MISC 09-427 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JERRY GAYLER, 73-580 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to convert an existing guesthouse into a second unit by adding a kitchen. LOCATION: 73-580 Ironwood Street ZONE: R1-20,000 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0. 6. CASE NO: RV 09-338 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALBERT LEWIS, 74-339 Chicory Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to park an 8' high RV in the front yard behind a proposed 6' high block wall and a cor-ten steel gate. LOCATION: 74-339 Chicory Street ZONE: R1 GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR091110min.doc Page 10 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, continued Case No. RV 09-338; applicant not in attendance. Motion carried 6-0. 7. CASE NO: RV 09-444 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEN STENDELL, 73-110 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to park a RV in the side yard behind a 6' high block wall and a gate LOCATION: 73-110 Ironwood Street ZONE: R1-20,000 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is seeking approval to entitle the right to purchase and store a 40' motor home, 12' in height on his property in the future. The RV will be located on the west side of the property, 5' from the property line behind a 6' block wall and gate on the side yard behind the front of the dwelling unit. The RV will be next to an existing patio and a 48" box tree. There is an existing secondary driveway that will provide access. There is an existing 6' block wall with hedges that extend 13'. The applicant's lot is large enough to accommodate an RV. The RV is located on the side yard screened from adjacent neighbors. Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Recreational Vehicles on Private Property, states the measurement of a RV shall not exceed 12' in height, which this RV falls under as measured to its highest point of 12'. Furthermore, this chapter states that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve and issue a permit to park a recreational vehicle 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. No public comments have been received prior to the writing of the staff report in response to the mailed legal notice to property owners within 300' of the applicant's property. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009W3091110min.doc Page 11 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REOW-W COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 The Commission reviewed the site plan and photos. Commissioner Levin asked how high the gate was and Mr. Ken Stendell, applicant stated that it was about 4'. Commissioner Levin recommended that the gate height be increased to 6 . The Commission reviewed the landscape screening materials. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned with the age and condition of the oleanders and Mr. Swartz stated that the oleanders were a part of the conditions of approval for the neighbors RV. As part of the approval, the neighbor maintains the oleanders and if they were ever torn done or were to die, he would replace them with another hedge. The Commission discussed the amount of room on the side yard for appropriate screening. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant would need at least 6' for a serious hedge. The Commission asked how the RV screening would be monitored and Ms. Grisa said that Code Compliance would probably check their RV list annually. Ms. Aylaian stated that most frequently it is complaint driven where the neighbors call and complain. Mr. Frank Taylor, resident of Palm Desert had an issue with the shrubbery being hard to maintain and said when it dies or it's removed it puts pressure upon the City staff for enforcement purposes. Commissioner Vuksic felt the lot was big enough to store the RV; which is not always the case. The house is angled on Ironwood and because of that it opens up that side yard. He realized that if the applicant places a motorhome anywhere near the gate or wall it's going to stick out. He thought this could be mitigated by parking the RV further in the back, not near the gate with more screening in that area as you head west on Ironwood. Mr. Stendall stated that he will be putting in a 6' gate and creating some sort of arch over the top to get a little more height. He stated that he has not purchased the RV as of yet and said that he agrees to conditioning this approval for fence and gate height, and to have continuous screening on the side property line to the adjacent property line. Commissioner Touschner asked if the applicant could build a garage and Mr. Stendall stated that the setbacks would not allow for a garage. Commissioner Lambell made a motion for approval subject to the RV being no less than 10' behind the patio; landscape on applicant's side (east side of property) to hide RV; installing a 6' gate and fence; and supplemental landscape in the front. Commissioner Vuksic seconded. GAPlanningUanine JudylWord FilesW Minutes\200MR091110min.doc Page 12 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REV W COMMISSION *..r MINUTES November 10, 2009 The applicant and the Commission discussed parking the RV further back into the property and additional landscaping on Ironwood and Shadow Mountain. Commissioner Touschner suggested that the RV be no less than 35 feet from the gate. Commissioner Levin recommended that it be 40 feet from the corner of the house, not the gate. Commissioner Van Wet felt that from the Shadow Mountain side the RV can be seen. Mr. Stendall stated that he planted caliandra on the inner wall which would grow 2' to 3' above the wall height. Commissioner Gregory thought that a provision could be included that foliage could be added to prevent a view from Shadow Mountain. The Commission discussed the height of the screening materials. Commissioner Lambell amended her motion to add supplemental landscaping in the front on Ironwood and additional foliage to prevent a view from the Shadow Mountain side; the RV is no less than 40' from the corner of the house; and screening height to be 12' on property line. Commissioner Vuksic seconded. Mr. Stendall said that the ordinance states that the screening height is 75% of the height. Mr. Bagato said that the current ordinance states adequately or substantially screened and staff is proposing 75% with the revised ordinance. Commissioner Lambell stated that the Commission is recommending that adequately screened is 100%. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have to word this carefully in case the applicant sells the property. Mr. Bagato explained that the permit is for the current owner and does not transfer to the new owner. Commissioner Levin stated that if it does not meet whatever the future ordinance is it stays with the current owner, but then it gets lost in the property sale. If it meets the future ordinance then it can carry over as long as they have the same size motorhome and would require a separate approval. Ms. Aylaian stated that this request is coming in under the existing ordinance and Mr. Bagato stated that this approval would be grandfathered in whether he was meeting it or not. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) RV to be no less than 40' from the corner of the house; 2) landscape on applicant side (east side of property) to hide RV; 3) installing a 6' gate and fence; 4) supplemental landscaping in the front on Ironwood and additional foliage to prevent a view from the Shadow Mountain side; and 5) screening height to be 12' high on property line. Motion carried 6-0. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 13 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL ROMW COMMISSION N MINUTES November 10, 2009 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-918 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary design review: CASEY'S RESTAURANT. LOCATION: 42-455 Washington Street ZONE: P.C. — 2 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. Conceptual drawings were reviewed by the ARC on July 14, 2009. Minor comments regarding roof top screening structures, tree placement adjacent to parking, and the front business doors were addressed and the revised proposal is here for preliminary design review. The improvements on the lot west of Casey's were recently demolished. At one time this was motel/hotel use and was converted in recent past to studio apartments. The structure was dilapidated and run down; the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency purchased this property and demolished the dilapidated structures. A portion of this old structure, a manager's office, sits on the Casey's restaurant site connected to the restaurant by a pass through roof structure. This connecting motel/manager's office will be demolished to create a better site layout and parking plan for the existing Casey's Restaurant site. Demolition work will include existing wooden fencing, old signage, and the existing corner yard wall. The new layout and site improvements consist of a revised parking layout, tree planters within the parking lot to meet the shade tree ordinance, new yard walls to create curb appeal, trash enclosure relocations, a revised fire access route, HVAC screening structures, and the incorporation of ADA site requirements. Revised site lighting includes parking lot lights, bollards, and sconces as illustrated in the proposed plan. Landscaping has been redesigned and increased to nearly reach the 15% requirement. Plans have been reviewed by the landscape specialist, and minor comments have been addressed in this new submittal. Staff believes that the design has achieved the optimal layout considering the existing site and building constraints. Various submittals have been reviewed by staff to help the applicant meet GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 14 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REV W COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 the current requirements for parking spaces, commercial landscaping coverage, parking lot tree shading, fire access, HVAC screening, setbacks and various other zoning and ordinance requirements. Staff believes the designs illustrated significantly improve the appearance of the existing building and site modifications while adhering to the City of Palm Desert requirements as best they can, given the existing constraints. The Commission and the applicant Mr. Reuel Young, Architect discussed the changes. Commissioner Touschner recommended beefing up the bollards and consider making them into a concrete bench. Ms. Grisa indicated that the parking lot lighting standards need to be reviewed in relation to tree locations. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to 1) beefing up the bollards; and 2) reviewing light standards in relation to tree locations. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Levin absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-154 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROGER SNELLENBERGER, P.O. Box 13990, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion of conceptual design of a 7,924 square foot residence; ROGER SNELLENBERGER. LOCATION: 628-120-005 ZONE: H.P.R Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The property is located in south Palm Desert in the hillside located on South Cliff Road. The proposed home is located on a 5.03 acre site on an existing ridgeline, which is prohibited per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15.030 Development Standards. Currently, there is an existing graded pad, which the applicant believes was graded in the 1950's. The applicant stated that the graded road and pad have legally existed since 1958 according to Riverside County records. The wood structure on the graded pad legally existed from 1958 until 1994 when it was accidentally GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\200"R091110min.doc Page 15 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REV VW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 destroyed by a fire. The applicant disagrees with staff's analysis of the location of the ridgeline. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential District was adopted in 2004. The purpose was to encourage minimal grading in the hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land, and to avoid extensive cut and fill to the slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect. It was also created to encourage architecture and landscape design which blend with the natural terrain, and to retain and protect undisturbed viewsheds, and natural landmarks. The density for the zone is one unit per 5 acres. The maximum dwelling size which includes total dwelling, garage and accessory structures shall not exceed 4,000 square feet. The proposed home is a 3,962 square foot residence including an additional 3,962 square feet of subterranean floor. The home is 14' from finish floor. There is an exception process for any home exceeding 4,000 square feet, but must be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The architecture is designed to initiate minimal grading that relates to the natural contours of land, while avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes. The architecture and landscape design blends in with the natural terrain, while retaining and protecting undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks and features including vistas and natural skyline. The lower floor is deliberately subterranean, and the remaining above-ground building is at 14' in height. The elevations are shielded from view by a combination of berming, and the application of native rock materials for elevation and roof treatments. The proposed home incorporates viewshed, topography, color, texture, and structure profiling. The applicant has submitted a site plan, elevations, floor plan, and perspectives from Haystack, Mesa View, and Grapevine Street. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the applicant has made some changes to the elevation that the architect will address. Mr. Barry Berkus, Architect presented free-hand sketches of the home to show the sculpture of the house. He presented the plans and explained to the Commission that the house is really just building the hill back, that it is not a ridgeline situation and cannot be seen from Highway 74. He addressed the hill in both directions and how the architecture becomes the ridge. They built a 3' berm around the edge of the property and as you come down the hill the house will disappear. The land coverage is correct and all the dirt is staying on the lot so they are not disturbing the neighborhood and this is by far the least intrusion of almost anything on the hill. He feels they have done a fairly intensive job at figuring out how not to see the house and how to end up giving the owner some view. GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word FIesW Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 16 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL RE EW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 Mr. Berkus discussed the roof and explained that the texture of the hill was repeated on the roof with rocks and boulders to carry the architecture across the top of the berm. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant used rock on the roof because it may be construed as a ridge situation. Mr. Berkus understood from staff that the ridge is a sensitive issue and they would rebuild that ridge so there is a continuance of the natural landscape around the site. Ms. Aylaian clarified to the applicant that the ridge is not a sensitive issue; the ridge is a prohibited issue according to code. The desire to naturalize and keep it blending in to the site is because 4,000 square feet is the largest house size you can build unless you get an exception. The exception says you have to meet with the intent of the ordinance which is to minimize the import and export of the cut and fill and it has to blend with the natural terrain to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the undisturbed area cannot be more than 10,000 square feet and the applicant shows 11,000 square feet. Mr. Sagato pointed out that they are asking for two exceptions and said that when staff did the ridgeline map this showed the ridgeline, but the applicant has the argument that it was already graded at one point. However that doesn't mean that it was really a ridgeline even when it was graded back in 1958. Basically to get our support they have to create a rehash line on the ridge but again we are saying it is prohibited on the ridgeline and whether or not the City Council will approve it is their call. He pointed out that the plans are presented to the Commission for conceptual approval only so the applicant is here only for comments. A motion is not needed because it cannot be preliminarily approved because staff is waiting for an environmental report and revised grading plans. Commissioner Touschner stated that it was a great plan and felt that it was an interesting project. She thought it can be pulled off by placing rock on the roof but had a concern that it will still look kind of different from the ridge. She discussed the roof in regards to color and size and the big out cropping of rock and said that there is also little pebbly dirt. Mr. Berkus thought they could do a 300 pound pebbly roof and introduce the rock in random places and not have as many boulders. Commissioner Touschner suggested they submit a bigger aerial so the Commission could get a better sense of the pool and cabana area. Commissioner Levin asked about the lighting. Mr. Berkus stated that dark sky is something they will work with and it will probably end up with dark sky lighting throughout even the outside lighting. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR091110min.doc Page 17 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REOft COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 Mr. Berkus stated that with the berm it doesn't make it possible to seethe dining room light and they are using non-glaze windows. Commissioner Vuksic felt this was going in the right direction and understood the concern with the copper roof and if it's not going to be clearly different then it needs to go away. They need to be careful about introducing large rocks so it doesn't look like a large vaulted form with rocks on it. He asked to see more detail on the end of the house to see how that is articulated and pointed out that the details are going to be important there. Commissioner Vuksic advised the applicant to model the rendering in 3D with the terrain so they can move around it and make it easier for the Planning Commission and City Council to understand how the house relates to the hill, as well as what you actually see or what you don't see from down below. Commissioner Vuksic stated that their goal isn't to show how great the hou:,e looks; it's to show how you don't see the house. He also said to make sure that when they model the house that they show the mountain behind it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they need to depict the glass more accurately because it is showing as the same color as the hill. He pointed out that the glass will be darker because of the big overhangs. He understands that the house will go away farther down the hill, but the applicant needs to be careful that they depict it accurately so everybody knows what they are going to get because you don't want to represent something this is going to actually look different. Commissioner Levin asked if they had to get a water quality plan and Ms. Christina Canales stated that they are. Mr. Doug Wilson thought this report was needed prior to Planning Commission and Mr. Swartz stated that staff will need to see the report in order to put conditions on the project prior to Planning Commission. Mr. Berkus stated that the initial study is basically finished but there are three items of soils that have to be answered; which will be taken care of within a couple of weeks. ACTION: The Commission recommended: 1) providing detailing for the rock material; 2) newer elevations need to be softer; 3) providing more detail on the end of house; 4) accurately depict glass; 5) provide a 3-D model of home including terrain and mountain behind; and 5) provide a grading plan. No action was taken — conceptual review only. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 18 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 2. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion of and recommendation to the City Council regarding the revised Recreational Vehicle Ordinance. Ms. Grisa presented an update on the Recreational Vehicle Ordinance. Staff requested three new members join the subcommittee, and the meeting was held on October 21, 2009 to discuss the proposed standards. The subcommittee discussed opinions in favor of and opposition to the proposed ordinance amendments. Discussions continued on reductions in the setback requirements for larger RVs in side or rear yards, but no clear agreement between parties in favor of or opposition to parking vehicles on private property was reached. There seemed to be a split opinion regarding the matter and it was agreed that staff would do further research to evaluate side and rear yard setbacks in relation to parking RVs. During this meeting it was made clear that the subcommittee agreed RV's parked within street side yards would need to be parked behind the side facade of the house, as was defined in the front yard parking procedures. Staff has researched various City standards and found it difficult to quantify a specified dimension to park a RV away from the property line. Many cities have arbitrary standards and parking locations are determined through a discretionary review process. Staff then consulted with the landscape division and determined that sufficient landscape space for proper growth and screening of a RV would necessitate a 6' dimension. Staff has incorporated new language into the ordinance that requires moving large RVs from street side yards to a location behind the side facade of the residence; reduces setback dimensions to 6' away from the property line for vehicles measuring 7' to 12' in height; provides emergency egress from residences; and eliminates the exceptions procedures language. Staff believes these revisions will provide the necessary standards for staff and the ARC to process each request to park RVs on private property uniformly. These new revisions will further enhance and preserve the community's appearance. Mr. Gene Poe, resident stated that he has always conformed to regulations for parking his RV and pointed out that since the City and the state are pushing for earthquake preparedness he and his family look at the RV as a shelter and a way to have a safe place to go that has water, power, and electricity with the use of a generator. He explained that his property is a large lot and the RV is parked out of the way. He agrees that RVs should not be located in the front yard. He expressed his concern about finding storage for his RV in these hard times and thinks this is not fair. He GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR091 1 10min.doc Page 19 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVN COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 assumed that he would be grandfathered because he's been at his location since 1975. Mr. Poe agrees with a lot of the issues but feels that it is stepping on personal property, especially when people buy a motorhome that conformed to the laws at the time. He thought it should be okay for homeowners to have RVs on their own property as long as it is out of the way. Fie presented photos of his property with an RV and mentioned that it is not blocking anyone's view and feels that he is not disturbing anybody. The Commission and Mr. Poe reviewed and discussed the photos, setbacks, and screening. Commissioner Gregcry asked if he had a permit and Mr. Poe said that he never needed to have one. Mr. Bagato stated that with the old code if you were: in the side yard or behind a wall you were approved and didn't need a permit. He stated that Mr. Poe would now be grandfathered in, but after he sells his property the new homeowner would not be grandfathered because it would not meet the current code because it would not be possible with a 6' setback. Staff explained how ordinances impact property rights; how high a house can be and where the setbacks are. That is the whole purpose of what zoning is and over time things change. The City has become more organized and people are trying to put the same RVs on the property which creates a visual concern to this Commission, to the citizens and some of the City Council members. The City Council as a whole doesn't say they want to get rid of RVs all together so that is why we are looking at some restrictions and as a compromise we feel that 6' of landscaping is a good way to screen and that someone has adequate space for an RV. Mr. Poe stated that he didn't want to change when he already conforms to the current ordinance. The Commission told him that he wouldn't have to change; he would be grandfathered in. Mr. Poe asked how that would be done and Mr. Bagato stated that after the ordinance is approved staff will go through the City-wide inventory and handle it case by case. Code Enforcement has already gone out and is taking pictures of each RV and has records of ones that have already been approved and records of the old ones that just met the code. He told Mr. Poe that he will probably receive a letter informing him that he has been grandfathered in and said that once you sell the property the new owner doesn't get that same right. GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 20 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION r..r MINUTES November 10, 2009 Ms. Aylaian discussed the 75% screening and said that Mr. Poe's RV looks short enough and the 6' high fence between the two properties cover them for having up to a 9' tall RV;. so they wouldn't have to install any landscaping under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bagato said the proposed code says if it's 7' or shorter you can be right up to the fence without additional screening. Ms. Aylaian said it also says you have to screen 75% of the height and asked if the fence or wall on the property line count as that screening. Ms. Grisa said yes but it is supposed to be set back the distance. Ms. Aylaian said so you would have to have the setback but you don't have to put in landscaping and Ms. Grisa said if it's only 9' tall with a 6' screen that is 75%. Mr. Brian Poe, resident described his property and was concerned that he wouldn't get the permits that he needs because his house was so far set back on the property. He has a 6' wall surrounding his property and parks his RV in the front. He asked what happens in this case when there is no room in the back of the property. Commissioner Gregory said that it would be an exception and Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would have to landscape it. Ms. Grisa indicated that the exception process was removed during the sub-committee meetings and City Council made it clear that they wanted exceptions to be very narrow and they didn't want to see any exceptions in the front yard. Staff felt that by taking it down to 6' an exception isn't needed. Mr. Bagato said that in this case where there is such a large front yard, technically they can build a detached garage. Mr. Frank Taylor, resident referred to the comment made earlier regarding earthquake preparedness and stated that people can still store their vehicles off site and use them in case of an earthquake. Mr. Taylor stated that the committee has done a great job refining the ordinance as a whole and mentioned a few items that were of concern to him. The first issue was with grandfathering people who will then start moving things in to get past the new ordinance. He went on to address certain sections of the proposed ordinance. He had a few concerns with the proposed ordinance. In Section 8.40.050 - A, he suggested that the word carport be removed. He felt that when you talk about screening the carport area people will come up with ideas to screen and then very soon it will come down and we are stuck with blight in the area. In Section 8.40.050 -5 regarding permanent shrubbery, he asked if it will it be grown to the 12' height or will the homeowner have to provide a shrubbery that is already 12' in height. He thought it should be conditioned that it GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 21 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVN COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2009 has to be up to that height before they can move the RV in. In Section 8.40.050 - 6.D.1 he felt this should be thrown out of the mix. He didn't like the idea of anything parked in the front yard. It should be made clear to the residents that nothing can be in the front yard and that it will be behind one of the facades of the house. In Section 8.40.070 — F regarding temporary parking permit procedures he said that at the City Council meeting residents were talking about parking their RVs at their home to load or unload them throughout the weekend. However this can end up parked for several days instead of 72 hours. He suggested that a time frame be included in this section. He thought there should be a time frame included in Section 8.40.090 regarding the temporary charging of a battery and filling holding tanks. The Commission and Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager Code Compliance discussed the temporary permit for loading and- unloading. Mr. Ponder stated that obtaining a temporary permit for 72 hours has always been in the code. They further discussed the issue of actively loading and unloading the RV. Ms. Grisa asked if the Commission would still like all RV applications to come through ARC and Commissioner Levin thought that if it complies with the ordinance in staff's opinion it didn't have to come through ARC. Commissioner Van Vliet said that if it is specific enough they didn't have to see them, but he had an issue with the 75% screening and felt that it should be 100%. They continued to discuss the landscaping screening. Ms. Grisa pointed out that views are not protected and stated that staff has to look at how these RVs can be screened if people were to put them in the rear or side yards. Mr. Bagato explained the reason staff removed the exception process was because we were getting away from a subjective code to a more defined code, but if we put in exceptions then people won't meet the codes and then we are back to a subjective ordinance. The Commission discussed the screening height and percentage of coverage and recommended that at the time of planting installation, a minimum of 75% of the height is required to screen the RV and the plant selection must be capable of growing to the full height of the proposed recreational vehicle. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\H Minutes\2009WR091110min.doc Page 22 of 23 t ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION .we MINUTES November 10, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to recommend approval to the City Council subject to: 1) at the time of planting installation, a minimum of 75% of the height is required to screen the recreational vehicle; and 2) plant selection must be capable of growing to the full height of proposed recreational vehicle. Motion carried 6-0. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200"R091110min.doc Page 23 of 23 �r�.,,� y �r �r-