Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-23 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES November 23, 2010 1. 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 20 2 Chris Van Vliet X 21 1 John Vuksic X 20 2 Karel Lambell X 20 2 Pam Touschner X 14 8 Allan Levin X 21 1 Ken Stendell X 21 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 9, 2010 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to approve the November 9, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R'bw4EW COMMISSION -1400 MINUTES November 23, 2010 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-367 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRIAN BAKER, 43-645 Texas Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a material front yard wall exception. LOCATION: 43-645 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1 9,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting a front yard material wall exception for composite fencing. He is proposing to wrap the fence around the north side of the house to line up with an existing shorter block wall, and then wrap around the front yard. The fence has a setback of 22' and the height of the fence is 5', which is well beyond what is required. Staff mailed a legal notice to the immediately adjacent neighbors and two neighbors are in attendance. Ms. Edna Cook, 43625 Texas stated that the applicant excavated part of her property while building his fence. She understands that this is not for the Commission's review, but she wanted to make this public knowledge. She has asked him to cease and desist, left notes on his door and he has yet to contact her. She doesn't mind that the applicant is building the fence but he needs to build it on his property and return her property to its original condition. Mr. Bagato stated that a survey is usually not required but since there is a dispute in this case staff will probably require one. Mr. Dan Perkins, 43665 Texas stated that he had no knowledge of his neighbor putting up a fence until he received the public notice. His only concern is that his property is lower than his neighbor's and his neighbor's water and pool runoff comes into his yard. His preference is to have a block wall so the water will remain on the neighbor's side. As far as the fence itself,it takes some getting used to because this is the first time he has seen this material. The material doesn't look bad and will probably last a long time, however is a little out of character. His only objection is that his property is lower and he will still get the water runoff. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\AR101123min.doc Page 2 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL RE%. dW COMMISSION MINUTES November 23, 2010 Ms. Grisa stated that they have the Homeowners Association's approval letter and staff is recommending approval of the material wall exception. Commissioner Stendell asked if the wall between the proposed site and Mr. Perkins house went through the proper channels and Ms. Grisa stated that it did. She pointed out that the south side already has composite fencing and the approval should be for the whole fence not just the one along the north side and the front. The Commission discussed the low block wall facing the golf course and Ms. Grisa stated that it will remain and the new fence will be going up to it. The Commission asked about the block planter between the two properties and Ms. Cook stated that the applicant would have to build on top of it or remove the side of the planter that is on his property. Commissioner Stendell asked why the applicant wasn't in attendance and Ms. Grisa stated that he was not able to attend. Commissioner Stendell stated that the applicant should be here to discuss the proposed court yard in the front using this product. Commissioner Gregory asked if this conforms to the 5' height and setback for this location and Ms. Grisa stated that it does. Commissioner Vuksic said that block is a better material; however the composite is a good looking product. He didn't have a problem with it if the homeowner association approves it. He said that the issue regarding the drainage and the fence being over the property line is for other departments to handle. He was concerned with how the applicant would deal with the existing wall and what that will look like. Commissioner Levin stated that if the applicant steps it up and over then it becomes an architectural design issue that the ARC would get involved in. Commissioner Gregory asked what the City's requirement was regarding block walls in the front yards and Ms. Grisa stated that in the front yard it has to be block, decorative or wrought iron and wood fences are not allowed. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the applicant feels the need to have a wall and it corresponds to our dictate the applicant could have it reviewed by the Commission. Right now the plans are inadequate for the Commission to make a decision for the front yard, let alone the problems with the wall being on the wrong property line. He thought it might be okay to have the composite fencing on the sides where it is not seen from the front. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minufes\2010WR101123min.doc Page 3 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL R%wlEW COMMISSION rrr1 MINUTES November 23, 2010 Commissioner Gregory suggested a continuance so the applicant can consider a block wall or some other type of decorate wall in the front yard that conforms to the City's requirements. The applicant also needs time to address the property line issues. Commissioner Stendall moved and Commissioner Levin seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked for further comments. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the Commission has previously approved a wall of this same material in another front yard and the homeowners association approved that as well. He suggested that the Commission visit the neighborhood to take a look at the previously approved composite fencing to determine if that was a good or bad decision. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to continue case MISC 10-367 subject to Commissioner's review of commonly used front yard wall materials within the neighborhood and applicant providing clarification on installation details. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 10-377 APPLICANT(AND ADDRESS): RIGOBERTO GARCIA GONZALEZ, 73- 325 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint color; Fresh Agave. LOCATION: 73-325 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that this request came before the ARC at the last meeting and it was approved subject to applying paint swatches to the backside of the building for the Commission's review. Commissioner Lambell said the darker color was bluer than the paint chip sample. Commissioner Stendell also thought the darker color was way off from the sample and the lighter color was whiter; not a light teal color like the sample. Commissioner Vuksic said that the blue color was a little strong and if they were trying to match the color of a blue agave, this is too intense. He thought they should tone the darker color down a bit. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR101123min.doc Page 4 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL RE widW COMMISSION ' MINUTES November 23, 2010 Commissioner Gregory suggested they reduce the intensity of the blue color chip and match the lighter chip to the approved chip, subject to staff review ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Vuksic seconded a motion on a prior approval to: 1) reduce the intensity of the blue color chip; 2) match lighter chip to approved chip; and 3) subject to staff review. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-368 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RC PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION, INC. Attn Jeff Edwards, 8417 Washington Blvd Suite 140, Roseville, CA 95678 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a color change; Carl's Jr. LOCATION: 73125 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting a color change for Carl's Jr. This came before the ARC at the last meeting and the Commission was concerned with a couple of the color samples and confused with how the colors were labeled on the drawings. They also requested that the color on the upper parapet should blend with the other colors selected. Mr. Bagato indicated that the yellow color has been eliminated and identified the other colors that have been selected. Mr. Carl Karcher, applicant stated that the very bottom of the building is a darker color and the rest of the building is a lighter color, except for the red. The Commission pointed out to him that the color selections on the rendering were incorrect. Commissioner Gregory stated that the darker colors were too close to each other and not discernible. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned that the existing awnings would be in conflict with the new red fascia color and Mr. Karcher stated that the colors would not conflict. The Commission discussed the two darker colors and Commissioner Gregory stated that the color chip #2 needs to be toned down a notch so that it's not so dark. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\AR101123min.doc Page 5 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES November 23, 2010 ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to grant granted approval subject to: 1) Nomadic Desert color replaces the #2 color on the elevation; 2) Portabella replaces the #3 color on the elevation; and 3) Heartthrob #5 remains the same. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS The Commission discussed Neon/Non-Illuminated signs. Commissioner Stendell expressed his interest in joining the committee. VII. ADJOURNMENT I Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes12010\AR101123min.doc Page 6 of 6