Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-13 �.rY `�rrr� ��T�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION - MINUTES May 13, 2014 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 9 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 8 1 Paul Clark X 8 1 Gene Colombini X 9 Allan Levin X 9 Michael McAuliffe X 8 1 Jim Mclntosh X 9 John Vuksic X 9 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 22, 2014 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the April 22, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Clark abstaining. AIf2CHITECTURAL RE�+W COMMISSION � MNNUTES May 13, 2014 �' CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-150 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: RUTH MEYER/GLENDA ADAMS, 12220 W. 31S Street Place, Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of an exception to allow a wood picket fence visible from the surrounding roadway. LOCATION: 77-355 Minnesota Avenue ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this is for an exception to allow an existing wood picket fence that complies with the height and setback requirements. The owner purchased the home in 2010 and the fence was already in place prior to the purchase. The fence and wall exception procedure in the municipal code allows the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) to make exceptions to the code for fences and walls. In this case, this isn't a new fence even though it was never permitted and staff feels that because of the overall design and the pride that the property owner takes in maintaining it, staff is recommending approval for this material. Commissioner Clark asked if this was installed prior to City annexation and Mr. Ceja said he could not find anything on the City's end that it was permitted prior to the annexation in 1994. Commissioner Levin asked if the section of the fence that comes down to the sidewalk was within the right-of-way. Mr. Ceja said it was and explained that Public Works has taken a new stance that they will allow certain improvements in the right-of-way including landscape, landscape holders, and some types of materials. Commissioner Vuksic asked how this came up. Mr. Ceja said Code Compliance received a list of homes from a resident in the Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) regarding fences that were never permitted, Staff investigated and found several of these types of fences. He informed the Commission that a legal notice was mailed and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. Gi Fl�nningUanineJudyV1RC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 2 of 10 , ARCHITECTURAL RE4�,,,N COMMISSION � MINUTES May 13, 2014 Ms. Kathleen O'Brien, introduced herself as the representative for the owners, Ruth Meyers and Glenda Adams, and informed the Commission that the fence has been there for at least 8 years. Commissioner Levin asked staff if this needed HOA approval. Mr. Bagato said HOA approval was a separate issue and the City technically doesn't need it and he wasn't aware if the HOA is willing to approve wood. Commissioner Vuksic said one of the reasons for the ordinance is because of the way wood behaves here in the desert. Wood is difficult to maintain to keep it looking good. He asked if we allow this what kind of precedence does it set. And in this case, if we don't allow this what kind of precedence does it set because there are probably a lot of wood fences out there that have been there for a long time. He asked if staff would be going to everyone who bought homes with fences that are completely unaware of this ordinance and make them take down their wood fence. It seems like it could get pretty nasty. Chair Van Vliet said it would probably take an ordinance change to address this. Commissioner Clark said he drove up and down Minnesota Avenue and noted that picket fences are not common in Palm Desert Country Club. Most of the homes have an open front yard and he would be concerned with setting a precedent here. The Commission discussed the possibility of an ordinance change regarding picket fences and the precedence it may set. They talked about the homes that have had wood fences for many years prior to the annexation and asked if these fences could be grandfathered. Mr. Bagato explained that if something has never been permitted it cannot be grandfathered. Even if it was done through the County prior to the annexation and there is no evidence of a permit, it is not considered legal. This would have to be something staff would evaluate as brand new. Ms. O'Brien said there are so many wood fences throughout the City. She explained that the applicants for this wood fence are impeccable and maintain it. She thought the PDCC allowed wood fences on the sides with wooden gates just not in the front yard. Mr. Swartz said the City allows for interior and rear wood fences but anything facing the street has to be either wrought iron or block, however there is an exception where the ARC can approve them. G:1Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 3 of 10 A�l2CHITECTURAL REV�N COMMISSION � � M�NUTES May 13, 2014 Commissioner Lambell said this becomes very subjective on when it goes over the point that it needs to be replaced or maintained. Ms. O'Brien said there are a lot of wooden fences but there are also many ugly brick walls that are peeling and falling apart. Commissioner McAuliffe said the precedence here is not that we are approving a new wooden fence, but a pre-existing fence that has been well maintained. He feels that the precedence is pre- existing and if the applicants came to this Commission for a brand new installation the precedent is no; this would not be an allowable material. Chair Van Vliet felt this will open a Pandora's Box. Once this is approved, it will allow people to put up wood fencing. Mr. Bagato said we would have to set the precedent on whether this is design worthy or not. We have to be willing to look at each fence on its own merit and be willing to approve it as a new fence based on aesthetics. Commissioner Clark asked what the aesthetics are on this fence that staff feels makes it extraordinary. Mr. Bagato said from a code standpoint a picket fence has more aesthetic merit. Commissioner Levin said this fence looks good. You see in, you see the front yard and the house, and it enhances the front yard as opposed to putting in a block wall that would make it look more contained. The Commission and staff discussed the intent of the code. Mr. Bagato said the code doesn't allow us to grant a variance or an exception based on it being a non-permitted fence 10 years ago and is still standing. It has to have more of an aesthetic appeal versus age and appearance. Commissioner Lambell felt the applicants were trying to bring some interest to the front of the home. She agrees that age does play a factor but this is a pre- existing fence that has architectural merit. Mr. Bagato explained that in 2001 wood fencing was allowed as a tie-in to the side of the house, but not beyond. It also allowed picket fences and open split-rail. Then when the code changed about eight years ago to increase the setback, the Council voted on removing all wood visible from the street or the public right-of-way. Commissioner Lambell asked if the applicant runs the risk of Council denying this and then it will have to come down. Mr. Bagato said yes. He explained that whatever action the ARC takes, Council can call it up. G:\�anning\,IanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE�I COMMISSION � MINUTES May 13, 2014 Commissioner Vuksic said if the applicant was coming in with this design for a new fence he would be okay with it because it is light, airy, low, and has architectural interest. If it was 6' high, he wouldn't be okay with it. With it being low it makes a huge difference; however he did not understand the protrusions coming out to the �idewalk and did not find them acceptable. Commissioner Colombini made a motion to approve the picket fence subject to: 1) removal of the extended portions on the fence that extend to the sidewalk; and 2) keeping fence at a straight line parallel to the street. Commissioner Vuksic made the second. Commissioner Clark said he was in support of that motion, but stated he had a lot of trouble with this because there is the potential for precedent, but it probably pre-dates the ordinance and the quality of the landscaping is very good. He also agrees that the side fences projecting out towards the sidewalk should be removed. Chair Van Vliet said if this was permitted at the time it was built it would add some credence to it. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to approve picket fence subject to: 1) removal of the extended portions on the fence that extend to the sidewalk; and 2) keeping fence at a straight line parallel to the street. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 7-1-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and Mclntosh voting NO. 2. CASE NO: MISC 14-152 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: KATHLEEN O'BRIEN, 77-275 Minnesota Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of an exception to allow a white vinyl picket fence located within the right-of-way of the front yard. LOCATION: 77-275 Minnesota Avenue ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this is for a wall exception for a 3'/2' high white vinyl picket fence with a 6' arbor. The fence is located 7' behind curb and is currently in the right-of-way, but as stated in the previous case it is okay for certain things to be located G:\Planning\JanineJudyU1RC\1Minutes\20141140513min.docx Page 5 of 10 A��tCHITECTURAL RE1i�i111 COMMISSION r� � MINUTES May 13, 2014 within the right-of-way. This fence was built about two to three years ago without permits. Staff is recommending approval based on the design and landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic said this fence is a lot more prominent than the last fence and is over the line for him and said just imagine if everyone started doing this. Ms. Kathleen O'Brien, applicant, said this fence was put up three years ago and described what the white picket fence means to her and her recent cancer diagnosis. She knows she was wrong for not getting it approved but would be willing to pay any fines to keep it up. Commissioner Clark asked the applicant if there was anything she might propose that would mitigate or moderate their concerns. Ms. O'Brien said the white arbor has little white roses that grow over it, the pathway to the front door is lined with 15 pink rose bushes, and inside the fence there are more rose bushes lining the front. She also said she would like to put in a landscaping curb in front of the fence to plant flowers. Chair Van Vliet said this fence doesn't blend in as well as the other fence and wasn't sure how it enhances the house with the color and design. Ms. O'Brien said there is white wicker furniture on the front porch, white windows, a white garage door, and a white front door. Commissioner Colombini said it was lovely but it does need to have landscape in the front. Commissioner Lambell explained to the applicant that having landscape is not a condition of approval because we don't like to rely on landscaping improvements to cover up what is otherwise an unenforceable fence. She said this is a low slung house trying to get some personality and while the arbor doesn't do anything to comply with the architecture of the home, it does add interest to the house. Commissioner Clark still had some concerns and felt that the vinyl material was not the intent of the ordinance. The Commission and staff discussed the approval process for wrought iron and block walls. Commissioner Lambell made a motion to approve the vinyl picket fence as presented. Commissioner Colombini made the second. Gf anning`JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 6 of 10 � ARCHITECTURAL RE� COMMISSION � MINUTES May 13, 2014 Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments and Commissioner Vuksic said this fence was better than a wrought iron fence which is acceptable over the counter. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve fence as presented. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 6-2 vote, with Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Vuksic voting YES and Clark and Van Vliet voting NO. 3. CASE NO: MISC 10-238 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AMERICAN AWNING, Jim Sadler, 1717 E. Vista Chino, Suite A7-416, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to the original approval of exterior awnings; Sidney Properties. LOCATION: 73-760 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1-S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission that this item received ARC approval for awnings in May 2013. The applicant then returned on April 8, 2014 to propose awning sails on the structure to try and get some height variations to the building. A mock-up of the proposed 3' high awning was prepared for the Commission's review, but staff felt it didn't do anything for the building. The Commission denied this proposal. The applicant then prepared another mock-up at 6' high. Mr. Swartz presented a photo presentation for the Commission's review and said there will be a total of three awnings all at the same height; either 3' or 6'. Mr. Bagato, Principal Planner, said the owner is trying to mimic the sail features they use in Palm Springs on a lot of the buildings there. He told the applicant that the current proposal is protruding off the building not sailing on top which gives this a tent feel. The applicant is trying to provide some solid shade and give the building some architectural enhancement. G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 7 of 10 A,��2CHITECTURAL RE�IV COMMISSION � � ' NlINUTES May 13, 2014 The Commission reviewed the photos provided and said this type of thing needs to look good from all angles and this only looks good from one angle. They suggested that the owner hire an architect to be involved with the design. They thought it could be a great idea if it is done right. Commissioner Vuksic said this is a tough building to work with. The sails are so different from the vernacular of the building because it is a strong building architecturally and to do something eclectic like this it is hard to do well. Commissioner Lambell felt they are headed in the right direction but they need more aesthetic direction from an architect not just the awning contractor. This Commission is charged with how a building looks aesthetically and how something like this fits with the building and surrounding areas. She said she is not seeing that here. Commissioner Mclntosh said the awning concept may work but the pole is just as important as the awning. Currently there is a thin pole braced up there and by tying an awning to it doesn't complete the design. If you look at structures that are done this way, the poles are tapered or trussed and they become part of the composition giving strength to the overall design. With this proposal they are hanging the awning on something and the awning is standing alone because the pole is so insignificant. There needs to be more thought put into the design. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that in order to mount the canvas they would have to remove several trellis members just to make room for the metal attachment and wondered what they intend to do there. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue to allow applicant to receive assistance from an architect and submit an overall architectural design. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES. G:�'anning4JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes12014\140513min.docx Page 8 of 10 , . . ARCHITECTURAL RE�,IU COMMISSION � MINUTES May 13, 2014 4. CASE NO: MISC 14-158 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: RUDY HERRERA, 73-145 Fiddleneck Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single-family home at a proposed height of 18'. LOCATION: 73-145 Fiddleneck Lane ZONE: R-1 20,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said the applicant is proposing to construct a new 5,000 square-foot single-family residence on an existing vacant lot. The property is located within the R-1 20,000 single-family residential zoning district. The proposed home maintains a roof height of 15' to an overall building height of 18'. The overall building height of 18' conforms to the maximum building height permitted in the zoning code. However, homes over 15' in height require approval by the City's Architectural Review Commission. The proposed home complies with all development standards, including maximum lot coverage and setbacks listed for the R-1 20,000 single-family residential zoning district. The majority of the home, including the portion of the home closest to the street, is proposed at a height of 15'. The middle of the home, above the great room, has a varied roof line of 16' and 18'. This portion of the home is setback from the rear property line by approximately 70' and the front property line is setback 80'. In addition, the home is setback from the closest side yard by approximately 40'. Staff is in favor of approving the proposed roof line and building height at 18' as the portion of the building height over 15' is minimal and sufficiently setback from surrounding properties. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that a legal notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. The Commission discussed the height of the home and the size of the vacant lot and made a motion to approve. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES. G:\PlanninglJanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 9 of 10 • , � A,�f2CHITECTURAL RE�r+W COMMISSION � MINUTES May 13, 2014 B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None V'1. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic May meeting not held as of this date. V1'�. COMMENTS The Commission discussed the Fairfield Inn, the denial of the fence on Delaware, the closing of the Mobil gas station on Highway 111, the Union Bank on EI Paseo, the Presage building, and the Venus de Fido building. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Vuksic, and an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. � � Tt:)NY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SI::CRETARY J��� I JUDY RI:CORDING SECRETARY Gf anning!JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140513min.docx Page 10 of 10