Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-24 r � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � ' MINUTES April 24, 2012 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 7 Chris Van Vliet X 6 1 John Vuksic X 5 2 Karel Lambell X 7 Pam Touschner X 5 2 Allan Levin X 7 Ken Stendell X 6 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: 03/13/12 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 20, 2012 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the April 20, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Stendell and Van Vliet abstaining. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R6�W COMMISSION � � MINUTES April 24, 2012 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 12-123 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: GLEN CEILEY, 304 Evening Star Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to permit the design and construction of a 5'-6" high block wall 10' from curb. LOCATION: 46-553 Desert Lily Drive ZONE: R-1, 12,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, assistant planner, presented a request for a block wall exception and stated the project site was located on the northwest corner of Desert Lily Drive and Willow Street. The applicant is requesting a 5'-6" high block wall 10' from curb along Willow Street and 12' back from curb along Desert Lily Drive. City code requires a 6' high wall to be 20' back from curb; a 5' high wall to be 15' back; and for a 3'-6" high wall it can be located on the property line, but in no event less than 7'. Staff found that the right- of-way along Willow Street is 10' from curb and the right-of-way along Desert Lily Drive is 12' from curb so the applicant cannot build a wall 10' from curb along Desert Lily. Staff is recommending approval of a 5' high wall with 5' high pilasters, 10' from curb along Willow Street and 10' from curb along Desert Lily, subject to landscape plan approval. Staff noticed the neighborhood and one neighbor is here to address the Commission with his concerns. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if he could make it 15' to meet the code. MR. CHRIS HERMAN said the homeowners will be converting the entire yard from turf to desert landscaping and are trying to capture as much of their space on the home side of the wall as possible. They will be installing shuffle board courts, an area for horseshoes, and desert gardens within their private, secured space, and to preserve one pepper tree located within the yard. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012\120424min.doc Page 2 of 7 �` ARCHITECTURAL REVi�I COMMISSION � MINUTES April 24, 2012 The Commission discussed height and length of the proposed wall. Mr. Swartz pointed out a wall across the street on a 1.6 acre single lot 10' from curb approved by the ARC a couple of years ago. Commissioner Van Vliet said it was unfortunate that that wall was approved. MR. HERMAN said this proposed wall will be pretty much at grade. Commissioner Van Vliet said they were above grade on Willow Street and asked if they were planning on changing the grade. MR. HERMAN said they are planning on grading the wall to retain soil on the other side. He does not have any details on the grading plan as of yet. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there were other homes with walls this close, besides the one with the 10' from curb. Commissioner Levin stated he drove down Willow Street to Highway 74 and there were none. The Commission discussed the wall 10' from curb. MR. MIKE ROVER, neighbor, stated he lives on the southeast corner of Desert Lily and Willow and the wall 10' from curb is one of the few walls you see around there except for the lots that go from Grapevine to Willow and he was not aware of any front yard enclosure walls. When this wall went up, a lot of neighbors were upset because their vistas were lost. He and the neighbors would like to preserve the long vistas and the community environment in the neighborhood and this proposed wall does not lend itself to either of those objectives. Commissioner Gregory said typically when someone requests an exception there is usually a good reason for it, for instance child safety or a tree they want to preserve. He noticed there is a pepper tree on this lot, but it looks like it is well into the property. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2012\120424min.doc Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL RCi�W COMMISSION v„�► . MINUTES April 24, 2012 MR. HERMAN said the use the homeowners are trying to accomplish on that side of the property won't allow the tree to remain if they have to move the wall 5' back. They would like to gain more privacy on their own property and there is also an issue with the neighbors leaving dog feces in their yard. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated the ordinance allows a 3'/2' wall to be 10' from curb. The City Council wants taller waCls further back because of concerns raised that it creates a prison look and you lose the community feel. The homeowners can achieve the uses and the privacy with a 5'/2' wall. Commissioner Vuksic said the other reason they grant exceptions is when it is normal for the neighborhood and in keeping with what is around them, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. He realizes that the Commission made a mistake with approving the 10' from curb, but to exacerbate that doesn't seem like a good idea. Commissioner Gregory said the Commission is sensitive to concerns with losing the neighborhood quality and so one of the aspects of the ordinance is that you can have a wall 10' from curb if you make it lower. You will have your vistas, the owners of this property will have the room they need, and it is a good compromise. The Commission and the applicant discussed a 3' high wall, a retaining wall, and building a hedge. Commissioner Van Vliet said the easiest thing to do is to move the wall back 5' then you wouldn't have to come back to ARC because it would meet the ordinance. Commissioner Gregory said they could articulate the wall and try to work out some type of compromise. One of the things they look out for is straight walls. Pilasters obviously help and were written into the ordinance to make walls more interesting and more appealing. The Commission discussed the grade separation and the need for more pilasters. Commissioner Van Vliet moved to continue. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2012\120424min.doc Page 4 of 7 •` ARCHITECTURAL REV�,,,,,,,,,�I COMMISSION MINUTES � April 24, 2012 Commissioner Gregory asked for additional comments. Commissioner Vuksic and applicant discussed the shuffle board court. MR. HERMAN said the Commission would have to see the overall concept of the courts and he will bring that back to the next meeting for review. He asked what the Commission would like to see when he returns to the next meeting. Commissioner Vuksic said instead of this wall looking like a fortress and defining the property, they need to articulate the wall so there is some give and take, as well as something that your neighbors were on board with. ACTION: Commissioner Van Vliet moved to continue case MISC 12-123 subject to: 1) showing more articulation in the wall; 2) submitting overall elevations; 3) provide distance between each pilaster; and 4) meet the 15' setback in certain locations. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: MISC 11-459 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SURESH SHAH, 40530 Morningstar Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of paint colors; Southwest Plaza. LOCATION: 73-345 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated this was continued from a previous meeting and presented photos taken prior to today's meeting. In reviewing the new colors, there is much more of the brown that has been added and staff is in favor. Initially, if the applicant would have followed the normal process staff would not have recommended approval with these colors. The applicant has now finished out the painting to make sure it is more acceptable to the Commission. MS. EILEEN DRYDEN, representative, stated that 90% of the yellow is gone and only a few accent walls with the yellow remain, but the majority of the yellow is gone. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes\2012N20424min.doc Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL R -=W COMMISSION � • MINUTES - April 24, 2012 The Commission reviewed the photos. Commissioner Vuksic stated he drove by this building this morning and said compared to what it was before this is a huge difference. He was glad the Commission talked about this and didn't just let it go. The problem with the yellow is that it is a very aggressive color and needs to be an accent. He pointed out places where there is still a lot of yellow. He made a motion to carry out the concept to finish what was started. The Commission reviewed and discussed the photos and the sections of yellow that need to be painted brown. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that the mechanical screen wall shall be brown on all sides, the lowest tier shall be brown on all sides, and that all work must be completed by Tuesday, May 22, 2012. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to continue Case MISC 11-459 subject to: 1) mechanical screen wall shall be brown on all sides; 2) lowest tier shall be brown on all sides; and 3) all work must be completed by Tuesday, May 22, 2012. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 7- 0 vote. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported the AIPP toured Coachella Valley Water District's newest building and the location of the artwork inside. G:1Planning\Janine JudylWord FilesW Minutes\2012\120424min.doc Page 6 of 7 •' ARCHITECTURAL RE�I COMMISSION ,,,� MINUTES April 24, 2012 VII. COMMENTS Mr. Bagato reported on the Red Lobster and stated that two tower elements on Highway 111 and one tower element on Painters Path were constructed incorrectly. He reviewed the architectural plans that this Commission reviewed and approved. However, the error came in the structural plans because the architect never made the changes as recommended by the ARC. Staff has issued a correction notice and the applicant will have to provide plans on how this will be corrected. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Stendell, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, and by a 7-0 vote the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. JA I JUD RE DING SECRETARY G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2012\120424min.doc Page 7 of 7