Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-10 '*age 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 10, 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 Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 14 2 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 16 John Vuksic X 14 2 Allan Levin X 15 1 Paul Clark X 15 1 Gene Colombini X 16 Michael McAuliffe X 12 1 Jim McIntosh X 12 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: 05/28/13 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 27, 2013 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the August 27, 2013 meeting minutes with changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote. ARCHITECTURAL RE `. COMMISSION MINUTES " ' September 10, 2013 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-278 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SHARON HOWARD, 43-866 Adonis Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an exception to 25.56.195 relating to development standards for new walls in residential zones. LOCATION: 43-577 Acacia Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, presented a request for an exception to 25.56.195 relating to development standards for new walls in residential zones. This is a corner property with the front of the property on Acacia Drive and Mimosa Drive, with the physical address on Acacia Drive. The applicant is requesting three exceptions: 1) a setback from the required 20' reduced to 12'; 2) use of gray precision block; and 3) no undulation because of the existing landscape. The applicant is requesting the new wall with the exceptions based on the following reasons: 1) the existing wood fence is currently located in the same location; 2) the property is a corner lot and the request is along the side yard, not the front yard of the property; 3) the neighbor has an existing front yard wall that starts 12'from the curb, and the new fence would line up with the existing fence; 4) there are two sheds located behind the existing fence. They would have to be relocated if the wall had to be moved back further than 12'; and 5) the gray precision block will match the existing home, which has some brick material painted white. In reviewing the request, staff believes this is a difficult property that needs to be improved. The existing neighborhood does not have many walls close to the street; however, this is a corner lot. In addition, the property appears to be lower than the street. Staff visited the property and could easily see over the existing 6' fence. Given the difficulty of the property staffs only concern is the proposed material and existing landscaping. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions that the gray precision wall be stuccoed to meet the. decorative requirement and the permit shall not be issued until the landscaping has been cleaned up on the street corner. MS. SHARON HOWARD, applicant, is requesting the precision block to preserve the integrity of the look. She presented photos of the neighborhood showing several different styles of block walls. She said Gi F anning'JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2013\130910min.docx Page 2 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL REV'—W COMMISSION MINUTES vftw September 10, 2013 most of her wall would be behind landscape. If the landscape fails, she will replace it with something appropriate. She pointed out her objections to stucco over the block and said she didn't like the cracks or outlines in the stucco. The Commission and the applicant discussed the gray precision block and stuccoing the wall. They felt that gray concrete block looks unfinished and suggested painting it as opposed to stucco to allow her to preserve the mid-century feel while creating something that looks finished. They also discussed stacking the 4" blocks instead of staggering them, the deep rake joints, and the gates. Too many people were talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. Chair Van Vliet asked staff if they were supporting the applicant's proposal to not paint the wall. Mr. Bagato said if the Commission is okay with the gray they can approve it. However, in his opinion there is nothing on the house that is gray; it is mostly white with tan. The Commission felt the house would need to have some pretty striking architectural elements to make it work and this house is not that strong architecturally. It was suggested the applicant use 16" x 8" stacked joint blocks painted gray to compliment the house. MS. HOWARD asked if the Commission would consider her building the wall gray and have staff come out to review it. She is not strongly opposed to painting it, but her preference is not to paint it. The Commission discussed the 20' setback and the applicants request for 12'. Mr. Bagato said that since it is the street side of the yard he wasn't concerned with the setback because it ties into the neighbors' fence. His biggest concern was the material and the landscaping being cleaned up. The Commission discussed the 95' long wall without any undulation. Mr. Bagato reminded the Commission that the applicant didn't propose any undulation and he felt that having columns wouldn't necessarily work. The Commissioner felt that since this is a unique lot it will not necessarily set a precedent. Mr. Bagato said the height and setback would be appropriate, but felt the material didn't match the house as proposed. The Commission continued to discuss the gray precision block. Commissioner Colombini had a concern with the color of the block looking commercial/industrial gray and recommended using custom white blocks that can either have a smooth or split face finish. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion for approval subject to conditions and Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Vuksic asked what recourse staff will have to ensure that the wall is painted if deemed necessary. Mr. Bagato said if the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1 Min utesQ013\130910min.docx Page 3 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL RED_ 'W COMMISSION MIINUTES ✓ September 10, 2013 applicant doesn't want to paint it, it won't get finaled and it will have to come back to Architecture Review. Staff would then have to go through Code Enforcement and place an action against it for not being in conformance with the approval. Chair Van Vliet wanted clarification regarding the deep rake joints and after discussing this issue, Commissioner Vuksic amended his motion. Commissioner Lambell agreed with the amendment. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) precision block stacked on installation; 2) joints shall have a 3/8" relief both vertical and horizontal; 3) staff to review gray precision block and determine if it needs to be painted. If so, applicant will submit color to staff; and 4) clean up and maintain landscape prior to permits being issued. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by an 8-0 vote. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-254 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANTO LOGOS, 45-775 Quailbrush, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a carport 20' from curb. LOCATION: 45-775 Quailbrush ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a preliminary request for a carport 20' from curb. The applicant is proposing to add a 400 square foot two-car carport. The carport is 19'-11' x 18' with a 2' overhang, attached to the main house off the second bedroom. The carport is designed with four 12" stucco columns to support the structure. The original home was built under the County of Riverside and the garage was converted into living space. The applicant is requesting covered parking, but does not meet the R-1 zoning setbacks. In approving such a setback, the Architectural Review Commission shall determine that a reduced setback will not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Staff believes the design of the carport maintains and blends into the architecture style of the home and the carport design is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff has not received any comments in favor or opposition to this request. Staff is recommending approval subject to: concealing all hardware within columns; carport roof must match existing G''arming\.lanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2013\130910min.docx Page 4 of 7 • ARCHITECTURAL RE`- -W COMMISSION MINUTES "" September 10, 2013 roof; the wood fascia must continue and blend into the existing fascia; and the Building & Safety Department's memorandum dated August 19, 2013. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed roof material, fascia detail, trusses, pitch, and the colors of the front elevation. MR. WENDELL VIETH, Architect, stated there would be no exposed wood or hardware and the beams on the east elevation will be stuccoed. Mr. Swartz stated this will be preliminary approval and construction plans will return to this Commission. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to preliminary approve subject to: 1) concealing all hardware within columns; 2) carport roof must match existing roof; 3) the wood fascia must continue and blend into the existing fascia; 4) the Building and Safety Department's memorandum dated August 19, 2013; and 5) submit final construction plans for approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by an 8-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: MISC 13-266 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO GROUP LLC, 32467 Temecula Parkway, F-101, Temecula, CA 92592 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a facade enhancement. LOCATION: 73-690 El Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented an approval of a new facade enhancement. He stated this building is currently vacant and outdated. The applicant will be increasing the height of this building to 28' with the maximum height being 30'. They are losing some square footage on the first floor and gaining it on the second floor. MR. JASON SMITH, Architect with JMS Design, presented the project and described the changes. They are consolidating the volume on the second floor to one volume on the north side of the building but maintaining the square footage. There is a 17" drop in the floor which will be filled in to be flush throughout the ground floor. A new ADA ramp will be added to the north side of the building. The staircase on the south side will be eliminated with one staircase on the north side and depending on occupancy there will be a second staircase added. G\PlanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2013\130910min.docx Page 5 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL RE IN COMMISSION MINUTES `' September 10, 2013 The roof access will be in the northwest corner with an exterior door leading to an interior access. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the roof access and the parapet heights to screen the roof equipment. They discussed the need for an elevator and MR. SMITH said the elevator will be client driven. There will be roof access via an exterior door leading to an interior access. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned that the parapet heights would not be high enough to cover the air conditioning unit. He expressed that the plans were ready for design approval, but recommended that the applicant needs to work on the parapet height now. Commissioner Clark asked if this will come back for final drawings. Mr. Bagato said typically it would, but if the Commission wants more details in the preliminary plans they can continue it and ask for more detail. The Commission and the applicant discussed the fin element on the south elevation and the color. It was recommended wrapping that fin farther around to the east side in height and color. Commissioner McAuliffe informed the applicant as he moves forward into the development of the landscape plans he may want to look at the plans for ADA accessibility and the clearance at the stair landing, as well as the ramp. The Commission discussed the air conditioning unit and felt that in the proposed location it would impact the architecture of the building. It was recommended that it be located on the second level of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that conceptually it looks really good and felt the Commission is pleased with the design. He suggested continuing it because the air conditioning unit could affect the architecture. The Commission and the applicant discussed placing the air conditioning units on the lower roof and if there was a problem, the applicant would return to this Commission. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminary approval subject to: 1) air conditioning units shall be located on the lower roof; 2) fin element on southeast corner to wrap farther around on the east side in height and color; 3) transition from dark to light on the northeast corner and bring to a 2" wide reveal; and 4) applicant to submit preliminary construction drawings. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by an 8-0 vote. C. Miscellaneous Items: None G,'=!mning`Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2013\130910min.docx Page 6 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL RE ?W COMMISSION MINUTES September 10, 2013 VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Nothing to report at this time. VII. COMMENTS Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, informed the Commission that a new Zoning Ordinance will go to the City Council for second reading. Vill. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner Lambell, and an 8- 0 vote, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. r TONY BAGATO, RINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY i JANI JUDY Rt ING RETARY GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\\Minutes\2013\130910min.docx Page 7 of 7