Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-12 � � ��T�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' ' MINUTES February 12, 2013 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 3 Chris Van Vliet X 2 1 John Vuksic X 2 1 Karel Lambell X 3 Allan Levin X 3 Ken Stendell X 3 Paul Clark X 3 Gene Colombini X 3 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings: I11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 22, 2013 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved to approve the January 22, 2013 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 7- 0-0-1 vote with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. ARCHITECTURAL RE`�W COMMISSION ;,,,� MINUTES February 12, 2013 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: JOHN MCVEA, 73-180 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a wall exception to allow a corrugated sheet metal gate and fence facing a public street. LOCATION: 73-180 Shadow Mountain Drive ZONE: R-1. 20,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant is requestirrg approval of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a 4' fence and a 6%z' high gate made of corrugated sheet metal. The gate and fence is located in the front yard, 20' back of curb facing a public street. The Code Compliance Division placed a "Stop Work Notice" on the property when work was being perFormed. He presented a slideshow of the fence and house. He visited the site and believes the use of corrugated sheet metal is not in keeping with the home or surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood has wrought iron and decorative block walls located in the front yards. The material is not permitted unless an exception by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is granted. All wall exceptions must be publicly noticed to adjacent property owners 10 days before the hearing and staff received one verbal testimony in opposition of the proposed material. It was noted that no one from the public was in attendance. Staff is recommending denial of the request. MR. JOHN MCVEA, applicant, stated he planned on building a fence and canvassed the neighborhood about six months ago to inspect the existing fences. He presented several pictures of the fences in the neighborhood and described the design he wanted for his fence. He explained that he erected the existing fence for safety reasons because the project across the street, at one time, had up to 40 to 50 people working on it for over a year. He quickly put up this current design because he would find people sleeping behind his car and in his cars and wanted to protect his 2%z year old son. When he tried to approach the people across the street, they became very combative and it was getting very unsafe. The final design would incorporate some of the corrugated metal from the current design with 40-50% of it G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 2 of 11 � ARCHITECTURAL RE�,,W COMMISSION � MINUTES February 12, 2013 behind a faCade. He wants to move forward with building a fence but he wants something that is contemporary and works well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Stendell said the idea of the design is different and pointed out a few places where it is used effectively. This type of fence could look interesting if detailed out appropriately. Mr. Bagato said staff has advised the applicant if he wants to use wrought iron and it meets the proper setbacks he would have to submit a full submittal for review. Commissioner Colombini was concerned with what the applicant would do in the meantime since it will take time to build a fence. Commissioner Stendell pointed out that this was a Code Compliance issue. Mr. Bagato said this is more of a civil matter. There have been complaints, but the applicant should go to the police. One of staff's concerns is people start to believe this material is okay. When the applicant first came to Planning, he said the gate wasn't finished and it would be shorter. However, some of the pictures being submitted to the Commission today were not presented originally. So this fence is evolving. He advised the Commission that it is better to deny the request and then have the applicant submit a full submittal for review. Commissioner Lambell said the first issue was the material which was a major concern, and secondly it was the height and the location of the gate. Both of those things need to be addressed in a submittal. Commissioner Van Vliet told the applicant not to be so concerned with finding a contractor. He needs design input to get a proper design. He also had concerns with the materials and felt the applicant shouldn't just screen the fence with landscaping because landscape dies and iYs not something the city likes to see. MR. MCVEA said he did have a designer out in June and September and they drove around the neighborhood getting ideas for the design. After developing a design, he will then work with a contractor. Commissioner Van Vliet said to get the designer, get the proper plan done, and consider using a limited amount of the metal in combination with masonry to be reviewed by this Commission. He stressed that the applicant has to start on the design side first. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes12013\130212min.docx Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE�;W COMMISSION � � MINUTES February 12, 2013 Commissioner Gregory asked if the existing fence would come down. Mr. Bagato said if it is denied the fence will come down. Commissioner Levin asked how long the applicant will have to remove the fence. Mr. Bagato said if the applicant wants to try to keep the fence, and if it is denied here today he has 15 days to appeal to the City Council. After that appeal period, Code Compliance usually gives them a time table of 10 days to take it down; so about 25 days. Commissioner Gregory remarked on Mr. Bagato's comment about people thinking this is something they can do if the material remains up. Commissioner Lambell said the metal has to come down because it's not approved for use in the City. And it needs to come down because the permanent fence cannot be built behind the existing one, which is tem porary. MR. MCVEA said this would be a temporary fence not a final fence. Mr. Bagato explained there is no permit for a temporary fence. When staff issues permits, they're permanent. After reviewing the neighborhood, staff found this wasn't sufficient to be a permanent approval. MR. MCVEA asked if he could leave his temporary fence up until the fence was done in 30 to 40 days. Mr. Bagato said if this request is denied, he would have roughly 25 days to build a new fence that would meet code. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to deny the request for permanent fencing subject to the applicant working with staff. Commissioner Clark added that materials be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that this is being presented as being permanent but he didn't want any misunderstanding that it was okay as temporary. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 4 of 11 � ARCHITECTURAL RE�,W COMMISSION � MINUTES February 12, 2013 After much discussion, Commissioner Clark made a motion to deny the application based on materials being incompatible with the neighborhood and recommended working with staff. Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic took exception with the materials being incompatible with the neighborhood because he didn't feel it was incompatible. It may, however, be somewhat incompatible with the house. He said it was easy to put up a block wall and plaster it, but it's more difficult to put up a more creative type of enclosure because there are more variables. It may work by adding some of the metal. Commissioner Clark agreed and modified his motion to read "incompatible as presented." Commissioner Levin agreed with the modification. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to denied Case MISC 13-06 based on materials being incompatible as presented. Recommend working with staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: CUP 10-292 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SPECTRUM SURVEYING & ENGINEERING, Attn: Dean Hinson, 8390 Maple Place, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a material change for the monopalm equipment enclosure; Living Desert. LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue ZONE: P, D Public Institution with a Drainage, Flood Plains, and Watercourse zoning overlay district Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated back on August 28, 2012 the Commission approved antennas on a building at the Living Desert, as well as a block material to screen the HCVA equipment. Construction is now under way and the applicant has returned with a request to change the material of the block. They are trying to match the block that is currently on the building. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�;W COMMISSION � � MINUTES February 12, 2013 MR. DEAN HINSON, General Contractor, said the application is exactly the same. The plans call for a sprayed on polyurea application. However the approved application, which is still polyurea, is not sprayed on. He is proposing StryoSpray 1,000 which is a roll-on application. The pattern matches the block wall and it can be sanded and painted. The Commission asked if the grout lines would be as deep as the existing grout lines and MR. HINSON said he would match them. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to grant approval subject to: 1) grout lines shall match existing grout lines and reviewed by staff in the field; and 2) finished paint product shall have a flat finish not a sheen finish. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Colombini and Clark abstaining B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Court, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a carport located in the front yard 20' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-120 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant is requesting to construct a carport 20' back from face of curb within the front yard. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single-carport into living space, and provide a new 192 square foot single-carport. The carport is 16' x 12' with a 2' overhang, attached to the main house off the second bedroom. The carport is designed as a trellis painted to match the existing house. The carport will be designed as a single- carport held up by 4' x 4' posts and 4' x 6' header. The carport will be located 20' back from face of curb. Staff believes the design of the carport blends into the architecture style of the home, and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff has not received any comments in favor or opposition to this request. G:\PlanningWanineJudylWord Files\t ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 6 of 11 • ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � MINUTES February 12, 2013 Commissioner Stendell said wiien he drove by the house he noticed T- 111 siding nailed on to the building where it looks like it used to be a carport or some sort of addition. Mr. Swartz said this area was built under the county and annexed back in 1994 so there aren't any permits on it. He pointed out that one of the stipulations from the Building Department is that the applicant must add an openable escape window or a door at the bedroom where the carport will be attached. This was okay with the applicant, but it does not appear on the design drawings. The Commission reviewed the drawings but there were no construction details attached and asked how this carport would be built. MR. DAVID NARZ, applicant, informed the Commission that he didn't want to go beyond the architectural renderings unless he got approval because he didn't want to go to the expense of having an engineer design the construction. He stated that it would be similar to the existing construction, probably a 6' x 6' post on each side on top of a concrete pier and headers. All three sides will be open and the roof will have asphalt shingles to match the house. It will slope just enough to get the rain off and have a drip edge. Commissioner Vuksic said this is a simple house and carport design which works well together, but it comes down to the details. The Commission needs to know how things are connected, does it look clean, is there a lot of exposed metal, and are the members thick enough to look right. MR. NARZ said there is the typical post beam connection there now along with the foundation connection which is probably Simpson products that can be painted. He has no intention of having big wrought iron black ornamental steel. The Commission discussed the size and type of materials for the carport. The applicant mentioned having a 16" on center because he didn't want a large span. The Commission discussed the finro-car driveway. Mr. Swartz stated this was circulated to Public Works and no concerns were noted. Commissioner Stendell made a motion to conceptually approve subject to applicant submitting final working drawings for approval. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � • MINUTES February 12, 2013 Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic informed the applicant that one of the things the Commission will be looking for is that the connectors are hidden. Commissioner Colombini made the second. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved to grant conceptual approval subject to applicant submitting final working drawings for approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: CUP 12-231 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: LOS ANGELES SMSA LP, dba Verizon Wireless, Attn: Mike Hayes, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D104, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a continued item to find an alternative cell site location. LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane ZONE: PR-5: Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this item was continued from September 25, 2012 for a 68' tall monopalm at Temple Sinai. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the property and the proposed location of the monopalm. The Commission had some concerns with the previous proposal because of the impact on the adjacent neighborhood and lack of landscaping in that area. This was continued to allow the applicant to find an alternative site for the monopalm. The applicant is now proposing the monopalm to be located directly in front of the building along with existing palm trees that range in size from 48', 55', 51' 46' and 27 all the way to 44', 53', 55', and 34'. The equipment shelter will be located in the parking lot. The biggest impact is that the monopalm will be directly in front of the Temple Sinai building, which has been approved by them. Commissioner Gregory said it appears that the equipment shelter is plopped right on top of the asphalt. He asked if there would be curbing around it to make it looked finished. MR. MIKE HAYES, Spectrum Surveying and Engineering, said this structure will be a masonry building and the roof will match the existing building. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Filesll ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 8 of 11 • ARCHITECTURAL RE��,,;W COMMISSION ;,,� MINUTES February 12, 2013 The Commission reviewed the equipment sheiter and recommended that it have at least a 24" perimeter around it along with landscaping and wood-braced curbing to match the rest of the planters. They asked where the conduit would be and MR. HAYES said it would all be underground. The Commission asked how tall the structure was and MR. HAYES said it was 14'-8", which includes the top of the mansard roof. He indicated the air conditioning unit will be on a raised 6" concrete pad. The Commission discussed the roof and the air conditioning unit. It was noted that there was a recessed area on the roof plans which looks like the A/C unit may be on the roof. They also pointed out that the existing roof doesn't look like a mansard roof and thought the perimeter may be mansard. Commissioner Gregory said he would like to move this forward with conditions. He said the roof materials would match the existing roof and the equipment structure would sit on a 6" high slab. One of the plans indicates planting around the building, so a planting plan should be submitted to the staff for review and approval. He wasn't sure if the CMU matches the building so he suggested that the face of the walls match the existing building walls. Commissioner Colombini still had concerns with the height of the air conditioning unit and asked again if they would be on the roof of the building where the plans show a recess. He mentioned that this did not appear on the plans. MR. HAYES said the air conditioning units sit inside the building and vent through the roof. It is not indicated on the plans because these are not structural drawings. Commissioner Colombini said if it will be on the outside on the roof well, then the parapet has to be low enough to hide the unit. MR. HAYES said the next set of drawings will show the locations of all the equipment. Commissioner Vuksic said he was worried about a lot of stuff getting left for final construction documents because sometimes it's a while before those come back to this Commission. He was concerned that the Commission wouldn't remember the project and what they were supposed to be looking for in the working drawings. He asked how the Commission can remember what was recommended. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE�1N COMMISSION � . MINUTES February 12, 2013 Commissioner Gregory said by having a very complex motion. Mr. Bagato pointed out that the CUP is mainly for the tower and staff will move it on to Planning Commission, but staff could bring it back to the Commission with the shelter design. MR. HAYES said they normally do their construction drawings concurrently with the zoning drawings so when he submits for planning he can also submit a set of construction drawings. ACTION: Commissioner Gregory moved to grant preliminary approval subject to: 1) the roof materials shall match existing buildings; 2) outside wall materials shall match existing buildings; 3) building raised 6" above parking lot grade to match top of curb as indicated on the plans; 4) a planter shall run around the building as indicated on the plans; 5) submit a planting plan to the Landscape Specialist; 6) air conditioning units shall be on the construction drawings; and 7) applicant to submit working drawings for final approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by an 8-0 vote. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported on the last Art in Public Places (AIPP) meeting. He discussed upcoming events: Modernism Week starts February 15; Tour of Sand Piper and Marrakesh Country Club, February 19; Fashion Week starts March 15; an art party will be held at the Palm Springs Art Museum/Palm Desert, April 27; Chamber mixer, May 15; student tours will take place every Wednesday starting at the museum. Three artists were added to the pre-approved list for the museum. New appointments were made to the AIPP Commission. Palm Desert Community Gallery will open a new exhibit, "My American Idol" on February 14. Desertscapes will run the entire month of April featuring films, workshops, and exhibits. The new website for AIPP is up and running and the Steelroots sculpture by Steve Tobin has been placed on the east end of the civic center complex on Fred Waring. VI1. COMMENTS None G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2 01 311 30 21 2min.docx Page 10 of 11 . ' . � ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION ,,,� MINUTES February 12, 2013 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner Clark, and an 8-0 vote, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. �� �� TONY BAG TO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY F J� I E J Y R CORDING SECRETARY G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�2013\130212min.docx Page 11 of 11 • , w � � M