Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-26 , , � � ��T�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES March 26, 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 6 Chris Van Vliet X 5 1 John Vuksic X 5 1 Karel Lambell X 6 Allan Levin X 5 1 Paul Clark X 5 1 Gene Colombini X 6 Michael McAuliffe X 3 Jim Mclntosh 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: III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MS. KIM HOUSKEN presented information on a collection at the Architecture Design Museum of Santa Barbara called Gas Station Design Collection that will run through May 12, 2013. One of the featured items is the tram station in Palm Springs. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 12, 2013 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the March 12, 2013 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 9-0 vote. ARCHITECTURAL REV�V COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: DOUGLASS KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 6' high block wall 12' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 44-870 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this case was continued from two previous meetings to allow the applicant to return with a 6' block wall and gate design 12' back from face of curb. The wall location was approved at the first meeting but the Commission requested column details. It came back to the last meeting and the columns were in front of the wall, however they were located within the right-of-way. The applicant has now made the columns flush with the wall at 12' back from curb. It is in line with the existing wall using the same materials. Commissioner Colombini and the applicant discussed the sliding metal gate, angle iron and the rollers on the bottom and the top of the gate. Chairman Gregory and Mr. Swartz discussed moving the wall back about 2" so the pilasters are not sticking out in the right-of-way. MS. HOUSKEN said they did consider angling the wall, but it wasn't . going to work with the sliding gate and it's not consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Colombini asked if there was a requirement in the code against jumping a curb by the gardeners. Mr. Bagato said there is nothing in the zoning requirement or from Public Works regarding jumping a curb. Commissioner Van Vliet pointed out there were no design details on the gate. MS. HOUSKEN indicated that the applicant would make it similar to the front gate currently on the house. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�2013\130326min.docx Page 2 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Vuksic said it shouldn't compete with the main gate, but compliment it. Chairman Gregory recommended that the applicant come back with a design for the gate and Mr. Swartz recommended they work with staff on the design of the gate. Commissioner Clark suggested the gate shall be compatible with the existing gate. Commissioner Vuksic said personally he's disappointed with this. The applicant is asking for a significant exception and he agrees that the wall should align more with the other wall instead of being back in a hole. However, he remembers the first meeting when the Commission said there needs to be some design to this and the applicant agreed, but he doesn't see it here. There needs to be a little more creativeness to the solution. MS. HOUSKEN said the wall will match the existing that is there. Their goal was to not make it look any different and to make it look like it's always been there. Commissioner Vuksic said he understands that, but the pilasters need to be something more. MS. HOUSKEN said the gate to the main house is on an angle and not parallel to the main wall. So the pilaster is angled to stick out a bit. However, it seems like they lost that option when they found out about the right-of-way issue. Commissioner Lambell talked about getting some definition and delineation to the watl and gate. MS. HOUSKEN said they did like the idea of the pilasters coming out further it was just the right-of-way issue. Chairman Gregory recommended that the Commission give the applicant a decision so he isn't bouncing back and forth. He was in favor of this because the applicant has an existing wall that will match and said the Commission encouraged this. He pointed out that normally it is the Commission's mandate to require articulation through some means in a wall. The only reason he wasn't pushing this mandate is because the applicant was trying to match his existing wall. This was an unusual case and normally when someone proposes a G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 3 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�►'V COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 new wali, there's isn't an existing wall adjacent to it. He would really like these applicants to get some decision from the Commission. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve subject to: 1) the wall shall be indented a minimum of 2" from the row; and 2) the face of gate needs to be compatible to the existing gate design and approved by staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-1, with Commissioner Vuksic voting NO. 2. CASE NO: MISC 12-315 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RETAIL OPPORTUNITY INVESTMENTS CORP (ROIC), Attn: Robert Doran, 8905 Town Venter Drive, Suite 108, San Diego, CA 92122 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to replace four existing monument signs and new landscape along Country Club Drive and Cook Street; Desert Springs Marketplace. LOCATION: 74-880 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC (2) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant was not able to attend this meeting. They thought what they were doing was pretty minor and didn't want to drive in from Irvine. They are proposing four monument signs at the Desert Springs Marketplace. The monument sign on the corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street was approved on March 13, 2013, but signs B, C, and D were continued. He presented sign boards indicating the before and after for the monument signs. Sign B, located at the entrance off Cook Street, will be repainted and the new logo added to it. On Sign C, located at Marketplace off Cook Street, they will redo the stone on the sides and bottom and will add the new logo. The parcel where Sign D is located, at the entrance to Morton's off Country Club Drive, is city owned; however there is an easement for the sign to be there. On this sign, they will redo the stone, paint the top, and add their logo. On the bottom of these signs, there were some concerns with the tenants at the bottom. The applicant agreed that it does look too busy and felt that Sign B was a little boxy. Sign B is currently in the right-of-way and the applicant will have to obtain a Hold Harmless Agreement. The Commission reviewed and discussed the internally lit monument signs. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Fles\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 4 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Chairman Gregory thought Sign C was fine from his prospective, but thought Sign D could look more like Sign C. Commissioner Lambell made a motion for approval subject to: 1) sign bases for signs C & D shall match more of sign C; 2) Desert Springs Marketplace logo shall be internally lit; 3) sign B approved as submitted subject to obtaining a Hold Harmless Agreement. Commissioner Levin made the second. Chairman Gregory asked if there were any further comments. The Commission discussed the sizes of the signs and the logos. They mentioned that the size of the logos where different for each sign and thought that was because of the photo sim. They suggested that the logos be uniformed in shape. Commissioner Levin asked if their approval was strictly limiting to what they see on the bottom of the signs or does the Commission leave open the option for the applicant to add additional tenants. Mr. Swartz said a request for an additional sign came here when Chase Bank went in and if was denied by this Commission. Chase Bank is located on the corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive and they have three signs. The Commission felt this would be too much signage if it was added to the monument sign. Commissioner Levin said the applicant, in previous meetings, has said they are spending a million dollars in renovating this, but it wasn't worth their time to drive here from Irvine. He's not going to second guess what they are going to do in the future. Mr. Bagato said the Commission can approve it the way they see fit and the applicant can come back if they have a concern with that decision. Commissioner McAuliffe thought Sign B works proportionately with the size of the logo represented in relationship to the tenants lettering below it. Signs C and D feel like a minimalist paint job of what's already out there. He couldn't tell the size of the logo that is being proposed on version 2 of Sign C and D. Chairman Gregory said the problem is a mute point in respect to the motion made and seconded so if the motion doesn't carry, then we can perhaps have another motion. He asked if there were any other comments. G:\Planning\Janine JudylWord Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2 01 311 30 32 6min.docx Page 5 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REV�,i�V COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Clark re-read the motion and recommended that the shape of the logos shali be uniform. Chairman Gregory wanted to make it clear thaf sign D matches more with Sign C. He called for the motion. The vote carried 6-3, with Commissioners Colombini, Levin, and Van Vliet voting NO. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission was just letting them go with whatever size logo they choose. The Commission disagreed. Mr. Bagato said when they get the construction drawings they can compare it to the photo sim. If it looks completely off the applicant will have to bring it back to the Commission or staff will tell them to change it. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to: 1) sign bases for signs C & D shall match more of sign C; 2) Desert Springs Marketplace logo shall be internally lit; 3) sign B approved as submitted subject to obtaining a Hold Harmless Agreement; and 4) shape of logos shall be uniform and approved by staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-3- 0-0 vote, with Commissioners Colombini, Levin, and Van Vliet voting NO. 3. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Circle, 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, said this was continued from three previous meetings; February 12, February 26, and March 12. It was continued at the last meeting to allow the Commissioners to go out and view the applicant's house and neighboring carports. Chairman Gregory said after viewing the house and surrounding carports, he felt comfortable with what is being proposed. The house is in nice condition; small and modest as were most of the homes in the neighborhood. After looking at several new and existing enclosures, this proposal may not be appropriate in a more upscale community. However, it is apropos for this neighborhood. He asked the applicant that day if some work could be done on the posts and the G\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�2013N30326min.docx Pc`�ge V Of �7 ARCHITECTURAL RE;;,�,,�W COMMISSION �,�„i MINUTES March 26, 2013 applicant agreed to square up the side in a way that it didn't look quite so funky. MR. DAVID NARZ, applicant, presented a drawing that showed added lumber on the posts. He thought what Commissioner Vuksic had suggested at a previous meeting was to not to have the carport overhang match the overhang of the house rather than inset with the first truss line. Chairman Gregory thought that was a good idea. He realizes there are many things that could be done to make it nicer. On the other hand, he also recognized that a lot of the additional things would weigh more, would require larger size material, and would make this more of a herculean effort. For example, it could have been plastered on the soffits underneath or to use heavier gauge timber. He felt okay with the metal straps being painted. Commissioner Colombini felt the same. However, the applicant is showing the blocks on two sides of the column and he thought it should go all the way around the column in order to hide the hardware. MR. NARZ said the idea of the H pattern was to give it some three dimensional shape creating an 8 by look, but it is still recessed around. Commissioner Van Vliet said he wasn't bothered by the height. It looks odd, but almost all of them in the neighborhood look odd. He felt that what was being proposed distracts from the house. He would like to see it Iower coming in more towards the roof line. This never would have been built this way in the beginning and it looks like an add-on. MR. NARZ said having walked around the house with Chairman Gregory and Commissioner Vuksic he pointed out that the original construction did stack on top of the wall and the patio cover actually comes in higher and sits on the outrigger. Chairman Gregory felt the ones that aligned with the fascia were too low. On the ones that matched the fascias, by the time it came out toward the street, it didn't look as pleasing as the ones that were up a little bit. Commissioner Clark pointed out that this is not a high-end community; it's a working class community. However, he did notice that the neighborhood has put value into their homes. So that is something this Commission needs to be concerned about because we don't want to do anything that would detract from that sense of value that exists in that community. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\1ARC\1Minutes�2013\130326min.docx Page 7 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�11 COMMISSION �► MINUTES March 26, 2013 The Commission and staff discussed the setback issues. Staff indicated that the required setback was 20' from the property line and the property line is 12' back from curb. The Commission wanted to know what the encroachment was. Mr. Bagato said there is no encroachment allowed. Under the code, the applicant has to be 32' from the curb to meet anything that staff can approve over the counter. This is what staff approved, but the applicant is taking a legal conforming situation and wants to add on to the house and bring in a carport that requires an exception based on architectural merit. The required setback is 20' from the property line and the property line is 12' back. Commissioner Clark asked how many feet the applicant is asking for an encroachment into the front setback. Mr. Bagato said the applicant has a full 20' with 18' to the posts. So this would be 18' plus a 2' overhang to give him a 20' carport. The Commission discussed the 12' setback. Mr. Bagato said most public streets are about 12'. In private communities, like Bighorn, it can be right up to the street. Chairman Gregory said this was developed obviously many years ago pursuant to requirements of the County at the time. He asked staff if these requirements were different than current City of Palm Desert requirements if a new subdivision was built. Mr. Bagato said not for a front setback. These are smaller lots and under planned community developments with smaller lots staff has allowed 15' setbacks; 3,500 sq. foot lots. This lot is 6,500 sq feet so we're a little above that. It's in the middle area and staff is looking at tweaking side setbacks for Palm Desert County Club because the old County requirement allows 5' and 5'. The 20' requirement is pretty standard City wide. Commissioner Levin said he walked this neighborhood and it has a very eclectic collection of overhangs, some of which are on the original houses. Some are enclosed, some have garage doors, one house has a massive stucco structure which is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He didn't have an issue with the carport going back to sit on the bearing wall and be up over the top of the roof. There are a number out there that are like that. As far as stucco underneath, there are a number of carports up and down the street with exposed beams. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 8 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�,,:W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner McAuliffe drove by and said the house is very clean and has a nice presentation. However he had some concerns. As he looked at the detailing and the photographs provided, there are a lot of examples of the roof canopy. A lot of the roof canopies are fairly thin; 2 x 4, 2 x 6. This is a four frame; using 2 x 10s and that's a pretty substantial structure. It doesn't mean that the other beams aren't of that same dimension, but just the appearance and profile it has at its eave it's stepping back up to something a little more delicate; which visually helps to lighten it. He discussed the intersection of the roof and the electrical mast head. He pointed out that this would be a messy detail because it's going to land right where that intersection is. He did like the addition of cladding to the columns and thought that was a move in the right direction. He suggested cladding between the 2 x 6s with a 1 by so all nails will be completely concealed. He would be concerned if the applicant just added the 2 x 8s to the front and back since this only conceals the top portion. Then it's the side straps that tend to be messy because they have twice as many nails. If there's one thing that the applicant's going to leave exposed, he'd rather see that and hide the sides. Commissioner Mclntosh thought the applicant was frustrated because initially he got conceptual approval on this carport. From an architect's prospective, when we go into detailing, we consider that as design development and through detailing the design can kind of evolve and make itself work better as a whole. Unfortunately, he feels this is where a lot of the Commissioners are getting hung up. The detailing didn't help develop the design any and help it relate together. There are a lot of creative solutions on the street and what is proposed on the plans is very minimal and sort of tacked on. He's hoping to see something that will enhance the neighborhood versus something that will give it a minimal approach. Since the house currently complies, the - applicant is not being forced to do this. The Commission agrees that the house is a clean design. So what can the applicant do to maintain that instead of filling in the existing compliant carport and then putting on something that is not really going to keep it looking clean. MR. NARZ said as a real estate broker, concrete contractor, and a general contractor, as well as working out here since 1980; he would not do this unless he thought it was something creative. He's not trying to make the property less attractive. If he would have known this would have taken two months, he would have built a side-loading carport and it probably would not have had to come before this committee. He's just trying to do something as simple as possible. The whole idea of adding a carport was a burden put on by the city when it annexed; not by the HOA that has already approved this, not by Public Works that has already approved this, and not by the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1 Minutes�2013\130326min.docx Page 9 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REV�1l COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Building Department that has already looked at the drawings and approved it and is just waiting for the Commission's approval. He is doing what he has to do to make it conform. Commissioner Mclntosh appreciated all those issues. The concerns of this Commission are the aesthetics and looking out for the community as a whole. Through design development you get a concept, you work it out, and find the road blocks. He asked staff if a side entry would be the best solution. Mr. Bagato said the applicant wouldn't have enough room for a side entry because the carport would have to be 16' from the property line and the carport has to be between 10' to 12' wide. The Commission discussed the code requirement of having two covered spaces. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that the City has always required covered spaces. Technically, if staff wanted to be onerous the applicant would need a two-car carport, but staff hasn't been onerous. This has always been a requirement and staff did inform the applicant two and a half months ago that this was an exception and it would have to be presented to this Commission. Typically it needs to match the house to the best extent possible. It is part of the process of converting a carport. Commissioner Clark said his observation on the County issue is that the property was probably built around 1970 and remained in the County jurisdiction for about 25 years more or less, and now we're almost 20 years into the City jurisdiction. So let's apply City standards and not worry too much about what may or may not have been allowed in the County. MR. NARZ said plans, as you know, are two dimensional and as a builder we all know that when we start erecting things stuff comes into play that we didn't notice. The problem with the front elevation of this is you are seeing the carport aligned with the fascia. He said it wasn't like he was trying to do anything new or old, he was doing what was on the plan and went with that and just tried to build it the same as how the back looked. Commissioner Vuksic said he didn't think the intent was to have everything line up, because the applicant is right, it might do that on two dimensional paper in elevation, but it doesn't do that in reality. The intent is to have everything connect properly. Personally he doesn't think the carports that are out there are too tow. He believes G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\t ARC\1Minutes\2 01 311 30 3 2 6min.docx Page 10 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 they are generally low slung houses and these low slung carports look appropriate with them. He saw tons of carports where they were coming off the existing fascia lines and dying into the existing fascia lines. He would be hard pressed to find one that is raised up that is similar to the one being proposed. There are other ones that are raised up but they were very different. There were several different designs out there. He thinks they were tacked on, but they were tacked on creatively. What he struggles with is that the Commission gave a conceptual approval and we should have thought more carefully about it at that time; what that meant and what the Commission was indicating to the applican.t. He stated that he listened to the recording of the minutes to make sure he understood it and to be as fair as he could be. One thing he heard on the tape was that the applicant was directed by staff to match existing and twice the applicant said he was just matching the existing. The applicant refers to the patio cover, but he doesn't see how the applicant can relate the carport to the patio cover in the back when you're looking at the street scene. He thought it was important for this to match the porch cover in some way to compliment it rather than to be a different animal from it. On the original drawing, what the Commission didn't see was the fact that the existing porch cover has hidden connectors and plaster below it. It is nice and clean and finished looking and what the applicant is proposing is a structure with exposed framing and exposed connectors. He feels comfortable asking that it be plastered below and that the connectors are hidden. What's frustrating for him is that the Commission is looking at making an exception here and it seems to him that when looking at making an exception iYs worth holding it to a reasonable standard even though it might cost a little more. Commissioner Colombini stated there are a number of plaster boards out there that are a lot lighter than the 3/4" stucco. Chairman Gregory suggested putting some type of stucco to cover the soffits. Commissioner Colombini suggested cladding the columns; all four sides of the hardware. Commissioner Vuksic said just because he's adding stucco it doesn't mean it has to get bulkier looking. It depends on how it's engineered. Commissioner Colombini again stated there are stucco boards you can get from 3/8" up to 1/2" or 3/4" and it weighs a lot less than the 3/4" stucco. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 11 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REV�riIV COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Chairman Gregory made a motion to approve the design subject to cladding the columns to hide all hardware. .Commissioner Levin made the second. Chairman Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the drawing they were looking at was the original drawing that received conceptual approval. Mr. Swartz said it was the original drawing. He then informed the Commission that he spoke with the City Attorney who said that just because it was conceptually approved and not a final the Commission could ask for revisions or a new design. That was part of the risk the applicant took by not bringing in the design details. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that once we lead an applicant down that path, unfortunately the Commission is locked into it even though they think this is a mistake at this time. . Chairman Gregory said he didn't make it a part of his motion, but he is extremely uncomfortable about that as well. If the Commission leads someone down a path and they follow along with the Commission's guidance, it is not fair to rescind it. Commissioner Vuksic said there's a difference between what we are allowed to do and what is fair. Commissioner Clark said if this was a one or two foot setback encroachment, he would say this was no big deal. However, it is substantially more and this will be visible up and down the street. At the time it was originally approved, he should have said more. He is impressed with the neighborhood and the investment in the neighborhood has been substantial. He doesn't see this as designed even as proposed for hiding the hardware as comporting with the desirability of the improvement in the neighborhood. He didn't think he could support it. Chairman Gregory suggested they take the vote and if the motion fails, then the applicant can move on to Plan B, if there is one. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to clarify that the motion is for the cladding on the posts and hiding all hardware, but nothing about plaster board or hidden connectors. Chairman Gregory also indicated that it be painted as to a previous agreement on the part of the applicant. Commissioner Levin agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chairman Gregory called for a vote. Motion failed 3-6. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Filesll ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page .12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE';,�:W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 MR. NARZ said he appreciated their time and effort and informed the Commission that he will now turn this into a garage. Mr. Narz left the conference room. The Commission and staff discussed the applicant withdrawing his proposal. Mr. Bagato asked Mr. Swartz to invite Mr. Narz back to the conference room so a final determination could be made to move this along. Mr. Bagato asked Mr. Narz if he was officially withdrawing his request or did he want the Commission to make a decision on the current plans so that if it is denied, the applicant could appeal to City Council. MR. NARZ said he would have to hear what the Commission is proposing because it sounds like he has to come to the City for architectural design. Mr. Bagato informed the applicant that the motion is to hide the hardware. MR. NARZ said hiding the hardware with some lumber is easy enough but asking him to hide the hardware by changing the engineering and to stucco the soffits would not be affordable and he will not re-engineer the drawings. Chairman Gregory asked Commissioner Colombini about the stucco material he referred to earlier. Commissioner Colombini said it was called stucco board and it already has stucco finish on it and you coat it with a heavy paint coat. At this point, there were too many people talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. The Commission and MR. NARZ discussed the fascia hiding the stucco and the joist size. It was suggested matching the existing porch cover. Commissioner Vuksic told the applicant that he would want to keep it thinner. The applicant would need to look at what happens if he spaced the joists closer together. Chairman Gregory made a motion to approve the current design and to apply some type of stucco material so all frame work is hidden and the columns will be clad to hide the hardware. G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesN ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 13 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�dU COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Vuksic suggested that keeping it thin is important and the motion needs to state that if there's added weight to be considered, that the engineering be reviewed. Chairman Gregory amended his motion to include those comments. Commissioner Colombini made the second. The motion failed 3-6. Chairman Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Levin said the Commission didn't like doing nothing and now doesn't like some.thing. Commissioner Van Vliet said he was never bothered by the stucco underneath so that was a non issue for him. He was bothered by the height coming in and closeness to the street. Commissioner Clark asked what the applicant would like to propose. MR. NARZ said cladding the posts. Commissioner Clark asked if the applicant had anything else to add to the application. MR. NARZ said he was prepared to build the carport as designed. Commissioner Clark recommended a motion to deny. Commissioner Van Vliet made the second. Chairman Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Levin didn't understand and said as you go up and down the street there is a lot of exposed beams. He asked Commissioner Vuksic what the objection was. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't see it applied in the same way as proposed in this project. In one of the photos, number 10, the house has a contemporary flair to it. There's some design even to the exposed beams that are soldiered below there. He likes the way it works as a composition for the whole house. Other exposed beams, as you can see in the other photos, are on some pretty wild �carport structures that have a lot of design and care that went into them. Three or four houses to the north of the applicant's he saw a carport with exposed framing and exposed hardware and it's certainly not something you want to match because it looked awful. That is why he doesn't see it as being appropriate for this house. He doesn't think that this proposal measures up to the standard of care and design of the other houses. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC11Minutes�2013\130326min.docx Page 14 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE'�,,:W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Levin asked if all the houses were stuccoed under the shade portion that comes out over the existing house. Commissioner Vuksic said a vast majority of carports that he looked at were coming off the existing eave and plastered below. Then there were exceptions that went to another level that was an attempt to do something that they perceived to be creative at considerable expense. MR. NARZ said anything that was an original carport was stuccoed. What you had to find was a person who turned the carport into a living space and then created a shade structure for their cars. He said in about 99.9% of those conditions the lumber was exposed. If you went to every house that didn't have anything added, all the original � carports are stuccoed. ThaYs why enclosing a carport is so easy. There is nothing structural about it, you just put walls on both sides of the carport and you then have an enclosed bedroom or an enclosed garage. There are a lot of houses that have their carports enclosed that have shade structures that do not meet the criteria of the city; they aren't 12' x 20'. Commissioner Clark said this speaks again to his motion to deny. The level of investment in this neighborhood by adjoining properties is significant and goes beyond a minimal investment. The Commission needs to take into account the fact that what we approve out there may survive for many decades. We need to make a decision to what is good for the long run. Commissioner Lambell said she is looking for architectural merit and something which has been given some thought to it. Chairman Gregory asked if the Commission was still in favor of the motion to deny. Mr. Bagato recommended a denial of the plans as presented. Commissioner Van Vliet said the applicant could then appeal to City Council. Mr. Bagato said he could appea� to City Council or come in with plans for the garage. Chairman Gregory asked the applicant if he would be interested in coming up with a revised design if this was denied. MR. NARZ said if his option right now was to get his plans approved by making some changes to the bottom of the joists, he is all for that. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\20t3\130326min.docx Page 15 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE�111 COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Chairman Gregory said that motion was not approved. MR. NARZ said there are three architects on this board and obviously they have their ideas of what a carport should look like and they should get into designing carports that can be stamped over the counter. Why waste his time trying to find somebody that can draw something that he thinks conforms to the City if it's just going to be denied by people that have different ideas of what a carport should look like. Chairman Gregory said he had a point and if this were something that came up frequently, they probably may wish to have city standards that are easier to follow. Mr. Bagato said the problem is that the Commission wants it to match the house and every home is different. The general comments are consistent; we don't want exposed hardware and we want it to match the house. That is what we tell people when they come in to apply and that's what we told this applicant from day one when he came in asking for the exception. Commissioner Vuksic said they need to be more careful when they give conceptual approval to make sure of what is being indicated to the applicant. , Chairman Gregory called for the vote to deny the proposal in its entirety. Motion carried 6-3. The Commission discussed carport structures and the standards of approval. It was suggested that staff, in the future, provide more clarity in regards to setbacks and a clear site plan. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to deny Case MISC 13-32 in its entirety. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet and carried by a 6-3-0-0, vote with Commissioners Gregory, Levin, and McAuliffe voting NO. B. Preliminary Plans: None G:1Planning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\1ARC\1Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 16 of 17 . . ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION ,� MINUTES March 26, 2013 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported on the last Art in Public Places meeting. The Community Gallery selected artists who applied to be on exhibit and one of the shows will be a blending of artists; he handed out brochures for DesertScapes; the docent program is getting rave reviews; painting four traffic boxes along Fred Waring was approved by City Council; and a painting workshop will be held in the Civic Center Park on April 14. VII. COMMENTS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 9-0 vote, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. �� TONY BAGATO, RINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY ..�//� 1 Il�� 'V'/� . W �` J NINE JUDY ° � CORDING RETARY G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1 Minutes12013\130326min.docx Page 17 of 17