Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-22 w �`•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES September 22, 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 16 2 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 17 1 Karel Lambell X 17 1 Pam Touschner X 13 5 Allan Levin X 12 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 25, 2009 & September 8, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the August 25, 2009 & September 8, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVINEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-366 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PETER SCHMIDT, 73-069 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a side yard wall exception. LOCATION: 73-069 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1 20,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The project request is to build a 6' high wall finished with stucco to match the existing residence and yard walls at a length of 52'. This proposed wall would follow the line of an existing yard wall currently located at 12'-6" away from the face of the curb on a street side yard. The replaced section of wall will run 52' from the existing gate at the southwest corner and extend north to intersect with an existing side yard wall at approximately 2'-6" in height. The failing Oleanders on the inside of the existing wall will be removed and replaced with 5-gallon Ficus trees. Pilasters have been proposed to meet City standards regarding the undulation in walls. One pilaster will be placed on the north end of the proposed section of wall, between the new 6' height and the existing 2'-6" existing wall. One more will be placed in the center of this section of wall and both new pilasters will match the existing height of the pilasters adjacent to the gate which will remain at the southwest corner of the site. The pilasters will extend 2" to 4" above the overall height of the wall. Bougainvillea and Mexican Birds of Paradise will be added to the side yard landscaping for additional color and transitioning the solid wall down to the street. Small rock cobble will be added to match the existing rock to cover the plastic cover that has become torn and exposed. Upon project completion, the applicant plans to create a stamped concrete driveway, which will eliminate the torn and exposed plastic in this area. Staff believes this wall exception is a reasonable request based on the existing site conditions and the fact that it still keeps the corner views clear for traffic with low lying walls. Ms. Grisa informed the Commission that a legal notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and stated that two people questioned what was happening and after showing them the plans they are okay with it. She asked if there GAPlanning\Wanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090922min.doc Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION �rrr MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. Commissioner Levin asked what the exception was and Ms. Grisa said that it is located 12'-6" away from the face of the curb and the standard for a 6' high wall is 20'. Mr. Peter Schmidt, applicant said that the existing wall runs along Verba Santa and continues on through the front of the property. He said that once the oleanders come down at the City's request, that will open up the whole back yard and they will have no privacy. He is hoping to gain some privacy by increasing the height of the wall. Commissioner Levin asked if the gate was staying and Mr. Schmidt answered that it was. Commissioner Levin asked about the two pilasters. Mr. Schmidt stated that he filled in that section and it will all be stucco including the pilasters. He stated he will maintain the line of the wall all the way around the property. It is a continuous wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in the photos it is a very nice looking house with the wall and landscaping. He said the applicant has a large setback on the front yard and they have done a good job with creating landscape out on the street. Mr. Schmidt stated that his intention is not to touch the balance of the wall because there is nice cactus and desert plants inside that wall and they didn't want to lose them. Commissioner Van Wet asked the applicant if he had to have a 6' wall or could he go with a 5' wall. Mr. Schmidt said that it is an issue of privacy and indicated that there were other walls in the neighborhood that were 6' high and he wanted his to be consistent. Commissioner Levin asked how high the gate was and Mr. Schmidt said that the gate was a little over 5' and the pilasters were about 6'. He didn't think he would go all the way up to 6' but the pilasters will be a little higher than the wall and he will try to keep it as consistent with the height of the pilasters at the gate. Commissioner Van Vliet wondered if the pilasters would look okay with the rest of the wall. He thought that the addition of the two pilasters would look odd because everything else looks smooth and it would make it look like a whole different architectural function. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said architecturally it doesn't seem to fit in. Commissioner Van Vliet said even though they will be adding landscaping it's not a very long section of wall. Commissioner Lambell asked if the two pilasters at the gate would remain and Mr. Schmidt stated that they would remain and be GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090922min.doc Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 stuccoed smooth. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager stated that the intention is to break up long expanses of walls. Ms. Aylaian said that if the Architectural Review Commission thinks it would be appropriate to break up long expanses of wall using landscaping instead of pilasters, she thought that would be appropriate. The Commission discussed the pilasters and landscaping. Commission Levin asked Ms. Christina Canales, Assistant City Engineer if there were plans for a sidewalk in that location and Ms. Canales answered no. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval of 6' high wall along with the two existing pilasters at gate; without any additional pilasters. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVIS STREET LAND COMPANY, 622 Davis Street Suite 200, Evanston, IL 60201 (El Paseo Village: El Paseo Land Company, LLC) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; Gardens on El Paseo LOCATION: 73-425 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Ryan Stendell presented final construction drawings for El Paseo Village. This is being presented to the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) because the architecture, landscaping and design is ready to be finaled. Staff is still working on a few minor details but would like to facilitate this project moving forward. The only thing that changed since the preliminary review was two fountains on El Paseo. The applicant wanted to add a few more fountains but staff is trying to limit that by offsetting the two fountains that are now in the two walking corridors by integrating them with landscaping and sitting areas. Mr. Stendell reminded the ARC that they had previously approved this project to go from a two-story down to a one-story building and said that the only thing that came up at Council was the addition of the roof-mounted solar PV system. He explained that this will be a LEAD registered building with some favorable hybrid car and golf cart parking GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090922min.doc Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REWEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 spaces. Staff is asking the ARC to grant final approval of construction drawings, but to hold the permits subject to staff's discretion based on verification of conditions placed on the project by the City Council. He informed the Commission that holding the permits will not affect the design of the building. Mr. Stendell requested the Commission to grant final approval. Commissioner Levin asked about the parking shade structures on the backside. Mr. Stendall stated that in previous plans they had a parking deck that blocked everything and through the redesign process they have actually accommodated many more layers of landscaping between the neighbors and the building. Staff feels that these issues have been mitigated. Commissioner Lambell asked if the roof-mounted equipment was screened and Mr. Stendell stated that the equipment was covered and pointed that out on the plans. He explained that the parapets cover the equipment and the additional screens block the view from El Paseo. On the rear of the building is the roof-mounted solar system. Commissioner Lambell said that there is quite a bit of a grade change and asked what the residents on the second floor would see. Mr. Knight stated that the type of trees they have there will provide a relatively dense head. The Commission reviewed and discussed the landscape plans. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet, to grant final approval of construction drawings subject to: 1) withholding permits until all departments are satisfied; and 2) landscape approval. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Proposal amendment to the Recreational Vehicle ordinance Chapter 8.40 Recreational Vehicles on Private Property. Ms. Missy Grisa presented the staff report and summarized the project. Over the last few months, several RV applications have GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A M1nutes\2009\AR090922min.doc Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 been received and processed through the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). As the ordinance is written, all RV cases must be reviewed by the ARC for approval. These cases have proven somewhat difficult to the Commission due to the language "substantially screened" and "deemed adequate to screen." These terms are subjective to the various parties directly affected, and each case is effectively treated differently based on existing site and building conditions. A copy of the current ordinance was attached for Commission's review regarding this particular language. On March 24, 2009, ARC made a motion requesting staff to investigate and research clearer standards regarding the screening of these vehicles on private property. On June 11, 2009 the City Council approved consideration of the recommendation by ARC to amend Chapter 8.40.040, 8.40.050, and 8.40.055 of the City's Recreational Vehicle Code. This approval directed staff to research and investigate varying RV standards from other jurisdictions to include in a more definitive writing of the ordinance. On August 27, 2009, the City Council approved and imposed a 45—day moratorium on requests for approval to park RVs on private property until the city's RV ordinance (P.D.M.C. Chapter 8.40) has been amended. Staff conducted a survey of various city standards and the documentation of that survey was presented to the Commission for their review. Staff has reviewed the various city standards and made draft corrections to the city's existing ordinance. After the moratorium to park RVs on private property was approved by City Council, a subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee consisted of city planning and code compliance staff, one City Council member, a member of the ARC and two city residents. The subcommittee met twice to discuss the first draft and draft revisions. The general consensus of the subcommittee was that these new standards would bring an ease in understanding the code and would allow the ARC simplicity in applying the same standards to each property across the board by tying the parking locations into zoning setback requirements and definitive screening measurements. 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. Additionally, staff has prepared a handout for the visual connection to the written code for review. This handout was created to illustrate where an RV may be GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\2009\AR090922min.doc Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION err► MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 parked in relation to a property's setbacks and property lines. Furthermore, it explains and illustrates what an applicant will need to provide for a complete review. Ms. Grisa outlined the changes to the Commission: Section 8.40.010 Purpose of Provisions; Section 8.40.020 Definition of recreational vehicles; Section 8.40.040 Measurement of recreational vehicles; Section 8.40.060 Permit issuance to park recreational vehicles on private property; Section 8.40.070 Temporary parking permit procedure; Section 8.40.080 Permit fees; and, Section 8.40.090 General Conditions. Commissioner Vuksic asked if a house was set back 30' and the required setback was 20', could the RV be any closer than 30' and not beyond the house. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it could if it was 3' or less and screened by a 5' wall then it could go in the front yard. Ms. Grisa said that if it is higher than 3' then it has to be beyond the front fagade of the house. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the fagade was the overhang or the front wall of the house. Staff indicated that it is the front wall of the house. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding language to the handout that in no case can the RVs extend beyond the front of the house. Ms. Grisa pointed out that there is language, but she will make it clearer. Commissioner Levin asked how van conversions fall into this category and stated that a lot of times they are converted into mini campers. Ms. Grisa thought it would fall into motorized vehicles primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for travel, camping, recreation, and vacationing. Commissioner Levin asked how it would be categorized if a person uses them as their daily means of transportation. Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager of Code Compliance said the van conversions are used as a mix purpose and Code Compliance is not concerned because the gross weight and weights is under 10,000 pounds, but when they get bigger and the code officer can tell that the primary purpose is not for transportation, he will make that determination. Commission Lambell asked how difficult will it be to enforce the permitting process when someone changes to a larger vehicle and how would staff know that it has changed. Mr. Ponder stated that they have already started a documentation process to track what has been approved and what type it is. When the residents come in with something different, staff will have a file of what was approved. Commissioner Levin asked what happens if they don't GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\H Minutes\2009\HR090922min.dOc Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 come in at all or they sell it and buy a new one and they think it's okay. Mr. Ponder said that one of Code Compliance's functions is assuring that special conditions are enforced and said that his staff is very proactive. He explained to the Commission that the City Council has given them the proper resources and tools in order to address these issues and since the officers are out there anyway this will be another thing for them to look for. Commissioner Levin wondered if an RV sticker could be placed on the vehicle to allow Code Compliance to see that it has been approved. Mr. Ponder said that there is currently a sticker process for commercial vehicles activity and thought that process could be integrated into that. Ms. Aylaian stated that process does have some merit and staff will take a look to see the potential issues with that process. Commissioner Gregory asked if the fee will be sufficient to cover the cost of administering the cost of the program. Ms. Aylaian stated that RV fees are based on a study that is done every few years to determine the cost of what it would be to permit something. Staff will make a recommendation for a starting point and then when it comes time, about a year from now when they go through the renewal update of fees, they will revisit that. In the meantime, we will base it upon a similar type of case we handle which goes through essentially the same amount of staff processing. It would be that price for the coming year or until the fee structure has been updated. The Commission discussed side mirrors, awnings, the air conditioning units on top of RVs and the emergency access on side yards. Ms. Grisa said she would indicate that the measurements would not include side mirrors, HVAC units on top, or awnings and the RVs shall not exceed 12" on each side for side mirrors or 16" for roof-mounted appendices. Commissioner Gregory stated that the emergency access should be unimpeded. The Commission asked if RV applications can be approved at staff level or would they all have to go through ARC. Commissioner Gregory said that with this new approach they would get a pretty high percentage of decisions made at staff level and then if staff is uncomfortable it would then come through ARC. Ms. Aylaian said that under the existing ordinance it is not required to bring everything to the ARC, but staff will if a case is controversial. If the Commission is comfortable allowing staff to make those decisions, we can certainly put that forward as a recommendation. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if it meets the guidelines the GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\2009 AR090922min.doc Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 Commission will approve it anyway. Ms. Aylaian asked if the Commission still wanted to see ones with RVs in the front and side yards. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they only review side and/or rear yards, no front yards and Ms. Aylaian said that the ones in the front yards can be more controversial and staff values the Commission's input. Commissioner Levin stated that after reading the proposed ordinance there is nothing that prohibits someone from getting a temporary permit for 72-hours and an extension for 72-hours more than once. Mr. Ponder said that technically that is right; however they do not get a lot of those requests. He reminded the Commission that the permit process has been in place for eight years with those specific provisions. Commissioner Levin said that the ordinance from Indio states that there is a gap of 30 days between each permit. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the 3' high maximum in the front was determined. Ms. Grisa said that they wanted to limit it to smaller vehicles, and trailers or landscape trailers without the sides. Commissioner Levin said that some of the landscape trailers have the tilt up tailgates and some are larger than 3' in height. Commissioner Van Vliet said that it would be a problem if it was more than 3' in height because then it would not qualify to be in the front. Ms. Grisa said that the Commission may want to limit whatever is parked in the front of the house to create that neighborhood feel without commercial trailers or RVs parked in the front yard. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't see any mention of street side yards, like a corner lot and asked how that plays into this new ordinance. Ms. Grisa stated that it would still fall under the setback requirements for the zone. Depending on what zone they are in they can have a 7' high or less RV in the required setback or 7' or more up to 12' on both sides of the setback. Ms. Grisa said that this setback is very restrictive and most people won't be allowed to have an RV in that location due to the lot size. Commissioner Lambell said when there are special circumstances like a corner lot, then it needs to come to ARC for discussion. The Commission discussed screening on side street yards and corner lots. Commissioner Gregory suggested adding a provision which says a RV cannot be seen from the street if it is in the side yard. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested 100% if on the corner. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090922min.doc Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic asked what will happen when someone comes in with a 11' high RV that they want to park on the side of their house and they can only have a 6' gate screening it. Ms. Aylaian said that technically the way it is written it would not comply with the requirement so if the ARC wants to allow that it would probably have to say 75% of the height of the vehicle shall be screened except for the direct access to the gate. Commissioner Vuksic said the Commission needs to address the language and if that is the intent of what the ARC would like to recommend, staff can craft the language for the Commission's review. Commissioner Van Vliet recommended 75% screening on the sides if adjacent house right next to it and the front would have a 6' to 7' high access gate or wall. Mr. Ken Stendell, resident stated that he has a 14' wide 135' long side yard behind a gate and his property has access for a RV. He bought this property in order to accommodate any type of recreational vehicle and he is concerned that this new ordinance will take away his useable space on his property. He understands that it has been a long hard haul to come up with something that has some teeth regarding motor homes, boats, trailers, and campers, being parked in front yards. Commissioner Van Wet asked if someone could be permitted for a certain size unit so that it runs with the property even though they don't physically have a RV. Ms. Aylaian said that the way this ordinance is written you would not be able to because you would have to provide photographs of the unit to determine the appropriate screening. The Commission discussed setbacks on the property. Commissioner Van Vliet said that an applicant could have an acre and a half lot and still try to cram their RV on the side. Ms. Grisa suggested a section for an exception procedure where it would be brought forward to ARC. Mr. Dan Malcom, resident had some concerns with how you accomplish 75% screening with a front gate as your access point. He said that essentially the City is restricting RVs to 9' high because you can't go higher than a 6' wall unless you have screening and you can't always do that at the front gate. His other concern is with the current ordinance and how the permits run with the land, and now that is being changed. If you have a home that is designed with a separate driveway and a curb out then the City is basically rendering those improvements obsolete. Ms. Grisa stated that RVs would still be allowed to park in those existing GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090922min.doc Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 improvements they would just have to adhere to the setbacks. Mr. Malcom thought that he wouldn't meet the new setback requirements and wanted to make the Commission aware that there could be sites that are developed with improvements for RV storage. He said one of the reasons he bought his home was because legally it has the RV storage. Commissioner Levin asked when this would be going to City Council. Ms. Aylaian stated that the ARC can recommend approval subject to the issues addressed and it would then go to the City Council with the Commission's recommendations on October 8tn Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to recommend approval subject to: 1) RVs parked on a street side yard on a corner lot must be 100% screened; 2) RVs shall not protrude beyond the front fagade of the house; 3) 75% of the height of the vehicle shall be screened except at the gate, which will be no higher than 6'; 4) maintain a 3' setback between the gate and the RV; 5) new construction shall be 3' from the front fagade of the house and gate; 6) maximum measurements of RVs do not include side-mounted mirrors or roof-mounted equipment; 7) mirrors shall not project more than 1' on either side of the RV and shall not exceed V-4" above the roof of the RV; and 8) addition of an exception procedure. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 , with Commissioner Touschner absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090922min.doc Page 11 of 11 ++ owe