Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-27 w� � ���T�� CITY OF PALM DESERT / , � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � ' ' MINUTES March 27, 2012 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 5 Chris Van Vliet X 5 John Vuksic X 3 2 Karel Lambell X 5 Pam Touschner X 3 2 Allan Levin X 5 Ken Stendell X 5 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 I11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 28, 2012 Action: Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Van Vliet seconded, to approve the February 28, 2012 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R ' - W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 27, 2012 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 12-85 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RUSS CLARKE, 35-450 Pegasus Court, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new residential addition at a final height of 18'. LOCATION: 74-680 Old Prospector Trail ZONE: R-1 30,000: Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report for a height exception. Staff, over the counter, can approve 15' or lower, but the applicant is asking for 18'. He indicated this height exception was for the new garage and has a 12' setback. He presented the roof plan and elevation showing the pitch and said the majority of the house is at 14' with a section going up to 17'-6"; 18' from grade. The Director of Community Development allowed a minor exception to reduce the 15' setback to 12'. The applicant notified his six neighbors and they are all in favor of this height exception. Mr. Bagato said staff received a letter from another neighbor who approved of the adjustment. Staff also recommends approval of lowering the entry way to 15' to be more proportionate. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with lowering the entry way because when you are looking up at it you are going to see the ridge of the entry hitting the top of the main parapet instead of nestling into it. The Commission asked why the applicant wanted to increase that area. Mr. Russ Clarke, applicant, stated the upper area in the garage will be used for storage, as well as giving it interest with little balconies on the front. He said he also presented this to his neighbors and they approved. Commissioner Gregory asked if 18' was the standard maximum height in many parts of Palm Desert as opposed to 15'. Mr. Bagato stated yes, but staff also looks at the consistency with the neighborhood and a lot of the homes in that area are larger. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to grant approval of final height of 18' and reducing entry feature to 15'. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and Touschner absent. G:\PlanninglJanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2012N20327min.doc Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE° ?W COMMISSION ' � MINUTES �"` '� March 27, 2012 2. CASE NO: MISC 12-103 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: MARCO ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, 74-300 Goleta Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approvat of a wall setback exception. LOCATION: 74-300 Goieta Avenue ZONE: R-1, S.P. Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report for a wall exception. When the applicant originally came to the counter, he requested a 6' high wall located 7' from curb. All walls and fences are measured from curb on property line. For a 6' high wall you have to be 20' back from curb; a 5' high wall you have to be 15' back; and for a 3'-6" high wall you can be located on the property line, but in no event less than 7'. Staff originally recommended the applicant reduce the wall to 5' if he wanted it 7' from the curb. However, staff is now recommending a 4'-6" fence; consisting of a 2' block wall with 2'-6" of wrought iron on top so it doesn't Iook like a massive wall. He stated that Ms. Wightman inspected the neighborhood and there are a lot of houses there with walls that close to the street. This was advertised and staff didn't receive any letters of opposition, but one neighbor in opposition was in attendance. Staff is recommending approval of the 4'-6" fence; consisting of a 2' block wall with 2'-6" of wrought iron on top. Commissioner Levin pointed out that part of the request was to return the walls on the sides and replace the chain link fencing with a block wall. Commissioner Gregory asked if the trench drawn in the rendering is pursuant to what staff is recommending. Mr. Swartz stated the trench is right at 7'. Mr. Paul Saunders, a neighbor, said he was concerned with a 6' high block wall that would block their view when they backed out of their driveway and thought it would interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic as well. He expressed this may no longer be an issue if the wall is approved for a 4'-6" fence; consisting of a 2' block wall with 2'-6" of wrought iron on top. The other concern he had was the modifications and neglect of this property has caused G:1PlanninglJanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes\2012\120327min.doc Page 3 of 10 • ARCHITECTURAL R ' -W COMMISSION MINUTES � March 27, 2012 the common fence between their two properties to become structurally unsound. The fence is falling down in the back because of the applicant's trees pushing against it. This should be addressed before any additions or upgrades are done to the front of the property. Commissioner Gregory asked if this was more of Code Enforcement issue as opposed to a design issue. Mr. Bagato stated it was a civil issue. If iYs a nuisance, staff could look at it but it would still be up to the neighbors to work it out. Commissioner Van Vliet stated there will be 5' columns at the ends of the fence that would not be a 4'-6" fence open alf the way. He didn't think the columns would block someone's view, but it was hard to tell from the rendering. Mr. Swartz stated there were 7 columns and the space between each one varied. Mr. Bagato stated they could have the traffic engineer take a look at the plans. Commissioner Gregory had a concern with the spacing of the columns. Mr. Bagato responded that code requires one column for every 30'. Commissioner Vuksic asked why there were so many openings and Mr. Marco Gutierrez, applicant, said the openings were for the driveway and the gates. Commissioner Gregory stated there were three sets of gates going across the front and asked how the City felt about them and Mr. Bagato stated if they were all the same height it would work. Commissioner Lambell stated it would have to be the same material and not chain link or wood and said the applicant would have to specify the material. Commissioner Gregory said the gates should be set back a little from the fence and the wall so the line is broken up to create some movement. Mr. Swartz said they can make that a condition when the gates come back to ARC. The Commission discussed the size of the openings for the driveway and walkways. Commissioner Gregory stated the gates should be setback a couple of feet and the columns may have to be rectangular. Commissioner Vuksic said he was okay with having it setback 7' from the curb because it seems consistent with the neighborhood. He was concerned that they were making a statement at the end of each one of the walls with a pilaster and as far as he can tell they are randomly spaced based on the need for the opening. At the end of the day when you're looking down the front of this thing you're going to see this haphazard spacing of pilasters and suggested the applicant submit a scaled drawing of the front so the Commission can see what is proposed. Commissioner Levin said if G:\Planningl,lanine Judy\Word Files�.4 Minutes12012\120327min doc Page 4 of 10 . ' . ARCHITECTURAL RE" -W COMMISSION �� MINUTES � � March 27, 2012 they put a gate across the main driveway it may not be able to swing out. It would have to swing inward or be a split rolling gate. Commissioner Stendell said after reviewing the analysis on the staff report, the Commission is basically looking at: a) a fence with columns with wrought iron on top; b) an agreeable situation where the applicant is willing to take the side property line back in the same venue as the front; c) gates which will be added in the future; and, d) the applicant must submit landscape plans for the outside. He stated this was an incomplete submittal. He recommended this be continued until the Commission receives a complete set of plans. He made a motion to continue and Commissioner Levin made the second. Mr. Gutierrez stated the reason he is putting up the wall is because of recent burglaries at his home. Commissioner Gregory told him he could build the wall, but the Commission's job was to make sure they knew what the applicant was proposing. He asked the applicant to submit more complete drawings. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to continue Case No. MISC 12-103 subject to submittal of detailed drawings showing gates, pilasters, landscape within front of the fence, and return walls. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 12-88 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DANIEL ANBARTOUMIAN, 41461 Jamaica Sands Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a monument sign; Casablanca. LOCATION: 41-750 '/Z Colada Court ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. Commissioner Van Vliet said it was pretty straight forward and felt the height was not an issue. Mr. Swartz stated the height was 5'-5" and staff's recommendation was that it be a little thicker. He indicated the applicant would have to submit a landscape plan before building permits are issued showing irrigation and suggested they score out G:\PlanninglJanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2012\120327min.doc Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE�:W COMMISSION � � ' MINUTES March 27, 2012 ' an area around the monument to remove sprinklers; otherwise the sprinklers will ruin the monument over time. Commissioner Vuksic felt the design laoked a little odd with the classical column forms with caps on them along with an organic piece of rock. He thought they could make a bigger piece of rock and stick it in the ground with a sign on it and not bother with the columns. Mr. Bagato referred to the sign on Monterey that looks like a metal mountain design that drops down into the ground. The Commission felt this was a better solution rather than having the two anchors. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to continue Case SA 12-88 subject to: 1) landscape plans must be approved before building permits are issued; 2) remove turf around proposed monument and install DG in front; 3) remove stone veneer columns; and 4) create mountain form for signage. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. 6. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: MISC 12-91 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)� FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, RUDY HERRERA, 73081 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conceptual review of 72 units; Villa Portofino LOCATION: Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Swartz presented the project that is part of Villa Portofino and said this project was originally approved in 1999. The whole site is 75 acres, 288 villa units and 182 casita units. On 13 acres i# is allocated for 151 skilled nursing and 116 assisted living. The project went into bankruptcy in 2004. Now there are three property owners owning three separate parcels. The applicant, Family G:�Planning\Janine Judy\Word FileslA Minutes\2012\120327min.doc Page 6 of 10 . ' � ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 27, 2012 Devetopment, has submitted a tentative tract map for the whole site, a new water quality management study, hydrotogy study, and grading plan. This will go through the Planning Commission and City Council along with a new development agreement. Right now they are still in the review process, but the applicants want feedback from the Architectural Review Commission for the 72 units. They are similar in style and each building would consist of 12 units. The difference between these units and the original units is the new units have a garage and the original ones have a carport. Commissioner Levin asked if there was anything in the existing approval regarding two stories backing up onto Country Club Drive. Mr. Swartz stated these were originally approved as two-story which is what is out there today. The applicant has also proposed roof decks for these units and currently the City Council has placed a moratorium on roof decks. Staff will present to the City Council an ordinance or recommendation later in the year for roof decks. Commissioner Levin asked if staff is revamping the ordinance, how can the Commission approve a roof deck if they don't know what the ordinance is going to require. Mr. Bagato stated the Commission is approving the overall design of the project and City Council will grant the exception. Mr. Vince Barbato, one of the principals of Family Development, stated they have complete homeowner approval on this project and met with the HOA who whole-heartedly endorse what is being presented. They are not here to present a down-sized product or something less than what is existing, but a product that has more features than what is currently there. Back when the original developer got this project approved, he built 36 casitas and 36 two- story condo units. Of those condo units, the developer built three buildings, which have sold. The other four buildings were 90% complete when Family Development purchased the property from the bank. They are now complete and are currently selling. They were approved to build six more of the two-story condo buildings and are here to present a new product, which is primarily driven by the market. The original developer had plans for this community to be assisted care and the 30,000 square foot club house was going to be used in large part for medical facilities to provide that service. That is no longer the case. Now it is solely an active adult age- restricted community and they are very excited to continue that trend. The original product was designed with the assisted care individual in mind and that was the reason there were only one G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2012\120327min.doc Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE' �W COMMISSION � , � MINUTES � March 27, 2012 • bedroom units proposed with very little storage. Since going to market, sales have been quite nice, but they've heard time and time again from the neighbors, as well as the visitors, they really want to have a garage and more storage. Commissioner Vuksic noticed rafter tails on the original plans but on the new submittal they were only on a couple of spots. He asked if that was a conscious decision to do that. Mr. John Danielian, architect, said they reintroduced the rafters in another drawing and feels that it enhances the elevation, but not to the . magnitude as the original p�an. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the new buildings would not have chimneys and Mr. Barbato said they do not have fireplaces in any of the plans because the market is not asking for them and they didn't want to spend the extra money that it would take to put in fireplaces. Commissioner Vuksic asked what type of windows they would be using and Mr. Ray Hererra, Family Development, said according to Title 24 they will be tan vinyl, nail-on windows. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the original building had any depth at the windows and he noticed there was a lot of trim happening around the windows. Mr. Hererra said they are all surface mounted windows and the proposed elevations show trim in all windows and are not recessed in. Commissioner Vuksic said it appears they are matching the details to what currently exists. He noticed on the existing product fairly flat looking towers and thought it would be a great opportunity to create a thicker leg on them to get some better dimension. Mr. Danielian said from an archifectural standpoint it would look strong, but they would have to study the site plan and make sure they can accommodate it in their plan and setbacks. Mr. Barbato said the current product has 10' ceiling heights and they are proposing the same for their product because they don't want to exceed the City's limitation. They tried to create some interest by dropping down the towers so the two entry towers are taller than the other towers to create some dimension and some strength. Commissioner Vuksic said the towers to the left and right elevation could use some help on the articulation. The way the windows are placed in there look extremely utilitarian. It's not just the shape or the arrangement of the windows, but it's allowing enough meat on the sides of them so that it looks right. G:\PlanninglJanineJudylWord FilesW Minutes\2012\120327min.doc Page 8 of 10 ' � ARCHITECTURAL RE� �W COMMISSION � MINUTES � �� March 27, 2012 Commissioner Levin noticed the roof decks were only accessible to some units. Mr. Barbato said the homes with a view are the first to sate and with the current layout not everyone can have a view because a lot of these units are turned into the neighbors. So they tried to create a condition with these new floor plans where everyone will have a view upstairs by adding on a roof deck. Commissioner Levin felt the stairwells on the front and rear elevation is killing the view right out of those windows. Mr. Barbato referred to the floor plans and explained the views from the kitchen, living area and master bedroom. The Commission reviewed and discussed the stairs and the roof decks. Commissioner Lambell asked if they made a provision for an elevator and the applicant said there were two elevators. They felt it would be a much better living condition to have two. Commissioner Levin asked what the trellises would consist of and Mr. Barbato said they would be a 2' x 6' wood trellis matching what is out there now. Commissioner Vuksic had a concern about the trellises up on the roof. He said they would look a lot better if they had tile roofs on them with plaster so they would tie into the building. Mr. Barbato said if the City would approve it, he would love the idea. Mr. Danielian said that was a great idea, but was concerned that there would be some height issues. He reminded the Commission that they probably won't see the trellises from the street. You might see them from across the street in the other building, but you won't see them from the street. He referred to the plan and said the trellises are set back quite a bit from the front elevation. Commissioner Lambell said it would add to the architecture of the building to have the roof decks in scale with the building and asked what the height would be. Mr. Barbato said it would raise it by another 4' to 5' for a total of 34' to 35'. Mr. Bagato said they were originally approved at 30' and the applicant is trying to stay within those limits. Mr. Barbato said if the City is favorable with approving roof decks, then they could do a line of site. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the roof access. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were planning to use different cotors to break up the massing so it doesn't read as one big mass. Mr. Barbato said they would like to do color variations because it would add more character to the building. G�1Planning\JanineJudy\WordFileslAMinutes12012N20327min.doc Page 9 of 10 � ARCHITECTURAL R�W COMMISSION , ' MINUTES � March 27, 2012 � Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the condenser units were �ocated for the HVAC units and Mr. Barbato said they were all on the ground ffoor. Commissioner Van Vliet noticed that the garage doors were all the same design, just a different color. He suggested they break up the look of them. Mr. Danielian said they would look at that. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission this was conceptual so they didn't have to make a motion. He said the applicant will come back when the WQMP is approved for the preliminary approval. Mr. Barbato said they will take the suggestions made today and incorporate them as best as they can. ACTION: Reviewed and discussed conceptual plans. No vote taken. VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported on the last AIPP meeting. The Commission considered artists for the Palm Desert Gallery and decided on four different exhibits that witl happen over the next several months with local artists. The Subcommittee came back with recommendations for artists and artwork for the following season on EI Paseo. The docent program is in full swing and giving lots of tours around the City. The Student Art and Essay Contest Award Ceremony was will be held March 29th in the Council Chamber. The new Palm Springs Art Museum is up and running. Desertscapes has a list of events with seminars and speeches for this program. He was very impressed with how much is going on in the community and in the art world. VII. COMMENTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. � �� � �t NINE J D ECOR I SECRETARY G:�PlanninglJanine Judy�Word Files�A Minutes\2012\120327min.doc � Page �� �f ��