Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-08 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 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 10 1 Chris Van Vliet X 11 John Vuksic X 10 1 Karel Lambell X 11 Pam Touschner X 7 4 Allan Levin X 11 Ken Stendell X 11 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 25, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the May 25, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5- 0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 2 of 8 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MiSC 10-189 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MT CONSTRUCTION, c/o Manuel Martinez, 81104 Avenida Romero, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a wall exception. LOCATION: 48-120 Birdie Way ZONE: R2-8,000 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a 5’ block wall with 5’ block columns located 8’ from front yard face of curb. The applicant submitted a site plan that shows an existing mature olive tree 12’ from face of curb. The olive tree would have to be removed in order to achieve the set back. The length of the wall would be 45’-7” and the width of the wall would be 23’. There would be two block columns located on the front of the wall at each corner. The columns are 4’ in height and 1’-4” in width. Landscape plans have been preliminary approved by the Landscape Specialist. The applicant is proposing to construct the block wall to give the house more privacy along with creating an enclosed courtyard. Chapter 25.56.195 states that fences greater than 42” in height, but less than 61”, must be 15’ from face of curb. In the past, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) has made the finding that the 15’ setback can sometimes be difficult to achieve in established neighborhoods with variables such as trees, location of patio covers, equipment, and existing hardscape. In most instances, the Commission has approved a 5’ wall set back 11’ from the curb. In this case, the 5’ block wall is setback 8’. The setback is difficult to achieve due to the size of their yard and location of an existing mature olive tree. Staff is recommending approval of a 5’ block wall 8’ from the face of curb. Neighbors within 300’ of the residence were noticed ten days in advance of this meeting to offer comment in favor of or opposed to the wall extension. None were noted to be in attendance. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a rather large change from the ordinance. The ordinance says 5’ no closer than 15’ and this wall is approximately half that distance. He felt that the wall was rather imposing and was concerned with what this will do to the neighborhood. One of the reasons for this ordinance is so that we don’t have a fortress feeling in front yards. Mr. Swartz stated that typically in the past ARC has approved a 5’ wall 11’ back from the face of curb, but with this proposal there is a tree in the front yard and the center of the tree is right at 12’, so with the footings they would have to remove the tree. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he had a specific purpose for the yard and Mr. Manual Martinez stated that they wanted to have an enclosed courtyard with a seating area. Commissioner Gregory wondered if there could be some articulation in the 45’-7” wall so that it moves away a little bit and doesn’t have such a linear quality to it so close to the curb. He thought they could make it closer to the tree where the olive tree is and then pull it back a little bit. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that the wall could come out and wrap around the tree then it could either step or angle back. He thought by putting pilasters on the wall would be a mistake because there are such nice clean lines on the house and the wall should be the same. If the wall wrapped around the tree and then angled back it would be interesting and still have a lot of open area and achieve what the owner would like. Commissioner Levin felt that 5’ was too imposing and thought they could cut it back to 4’. He pointed out that the street is very private and not a high traffic street. He said that he would have fewer issues with a 4’ wall than a 5’ wall. Commissioner Gregory asked what the setback was for a 4’ wall and Mr. Swartz stated that it would have the same 15’ setback. Mr. Bagato stated that at 3½’ they can have a 7’ setback as long as it’s not in the right-of-way. Commissioner Stendell stated that the tree is the key element to comply with the ordinance and agrees that the columns would be a distraction to the style. Mr. Swartz said that the code states that every 30’ you have to have at least 8’ of undulation so that is the reason for the pilasters. The Commission discussed angling the wall back. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 4 of 8 Mr. Martinez stated that the elevation across the street is almost 4’ higher; it is raised up off the street. The homeowner’s courtyard would still be visible from across the street and that is why they are requesting a 5’ wall. The wall will be stuccoed and painted to match the house and the pilasters will die in. Commissioner Stendell stated that there are only three houses on the east side of the street that would have the ability to build walls and he didn’t think this set a precedence. Commissioner Lambell had concerns with a 45’-7” long wall 5’ high and felt it would start to close in the street. She likes the idea of doing something different like stepping and angling back. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn’t have a problem with them building a wall. He said that if the applicant were to articulate the wall to obtain an average setback where it would be more in the spirit of the ordinance and something that is more sensitive to the neighborhood, there is every reason for this to get approved; but not quite the way it is now. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to continue with comments and Commissioner Stendell seconded. Mr. Bagato asked that the Commission give specific comments to the applicant so he can go back to the homeowner with some direction. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it needs to be pulled back 8’ only at the closest point to clear the tree and the wall to come to no more than 12’ from the house at the south end. The Commission discussed the height of the wall. Commissioner Lambell attempted to make a motion but stated that the Commission needs to give them a height to work with and then propose something that is not 45’-7” of lineal wall. It also must be articulated back towards the house and perhaps step down as it comes around the house. Commissioner Stendell asked if she was asking for a wall that was less than 5’ and she said not the whole wall, but it needs to move as it takes on different planes. Commissioner Gregory asked if this was too ambiguous for the applicant and Commissioner Vuksic was concerned that they will struggle with this. He suggested creating a series of planes with the walls and stagger the planes to get out around that olive tree and stagger the heights where the wall is out past the olive tree at a lower height and then get higher as you go back to create privacy ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 5 of 8 screens, which will also break up the mass. He asked the applicant to take some measurements and re-do the site plan including the tree location. The Commission discussed the thickness and other materials that can be used for the wall. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to continue Case MISC 10-189 subject to: 1) create a series of planes with the wall to match the architecture of the house; 2) stagger the wall height to conform to the ordinance; 3) walls need to be overlapped with a 12” thickness; 4) the wall shall be no more than 12’ from the house at the south end; and 5) submit updated photos, corrected site plan, and a landscape plan. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-521 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPRINT, 6391 Sprint Parkway. Overland Park, KS 66251 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of the addition of three panel antennas, three microwave antennas, one GPS antenna, and one new equipment cabinet to an existing 65’ mono-palm. LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74 ZONE: P Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. Sprint is requesting approval of the aesthetic effect of the addition and co-location of three exposed panel antennas to replace existing hidden antennas and three exposed microwave dishes to an existing 65’ mono-palm. In addition, one new equipment cabinet would be installed within an existing equipment shelter. The project site located at St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church has three separate mono-palms currently on-site. All antennas, microwave dishes, and equipment are hidden from view. This proposed co-location would be on an existing stealth installation mono-palm located approximately 240’ from the nearest adjacent residence. Stealth communication towers are designed to blend in with their existing natural environment. By adding antennas and microwave dishes to the exterior of the mono-palm, staff believes it loses the effect of the originally approved stealth design. It now becomes visually ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 6 of 8 obvious that it is a telecommunications facility immediately adjacent a residential neighborhood. A site visit has indicated artificial palm fronds have not been maintained. Fronds from the top of the tree are missing and lying within the equipment cabinet enclosure below. Staff recommends denial of the proposed co-location due to the elimination of the stealth design communication tower with exposed equipment; or allowing the applicant to continue and return with a proposed co-location telecommunications facility with enclosed equipment within the mono-palm, maintaining the aesthetic character of the original approval. Mr. Mike Sloop, applicant stated that Sprint and Clearwire working together is hoping to get the microwave antennas approved as they are, but if the Commission is not inclined to approve it then he would appreciate a continuance. In the meantime, he will see if they can either extend the pod and keep it looking reasonable or integrate it with faux palm leaves to create enough room. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case MISC 09-521. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Lambell and Levin abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. 3. CASE NO: RV 09-504 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LUKE LANGFORD, 74-980 Fairway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exception to park a recreational vehicle in the side yard. LOCATION: 74-980 Fairway Drive ZONE: R-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a RV in the west street side yard of the residence. The RV measures 12’-3” high, 34’-10” long and 8’- 5” wide. The property is surrounded by three streets: Wingfoot Drive to the west, Fairway Drive to the south, and Cook Street to the east. One property owner exists just north of the property. A legal notice was mailed to the adjacent property owner to inform them of the meeting on June 8, 2010. To date, no response in favor ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 7 of 8 of or opposition to the proposed parking location has been received. The parking location is surrounded by 12-15’ high existing landscaping to the west and to the north. The house sits to the east of the RV and an existing 6’ high gate screens the proposed unit from the front view. The backyard does have a pool area which makes it nearly impossible to park the unit in any other location. The revised RV ordinance eliminated street side yard parking to promote parking on the opposite side of the house away from the street. This lot varies from the standard lots within the neighborhood since it is surrounded by three streets, and therefore qualifies for an exception. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the proposed RV parking location as it is fully screened by landscaping from immediately adjacent neighbors and has a 6’ solid access gate blocking the view from the street. Commissioner Levin asked that a condition be added to the approval that the oleanders remain. Ms. Grisa explained that the Commission could make that part of the approval, but it is one of the requirements of the new ordinance that RVs shall be 100% screened. The Commission discussed the location where the RV will be parked and how far back it will be on the property. It was recommended that they park the RV behind the ridgeline of the roof. The Commission also asked how long the new RV would be. Mrs. Langford, applicant answered that their new RV would not be any longer than 30’ and it would be parked as far back as possible. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to grant approval to park an RV less than 34’ on the west side of the property subject to; 1) RV must be parked behind the ridgeline of the roof; and 2) landscape must be maintained at 100% screening. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100608min.doc Page 8 of 8 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi- family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant who was not in attendance requested that this be continued to the June 22nd meeting. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case PP 09-507 to June 22, 2010 due to the applicant not being in attendance. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER