Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-12 �1•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES July 12, 2016 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 7 2 Gene Colombini X 8 1 Allan Levin X 8 1 Michael McAuliffe X 9 Jim McIntosh X 7 2 John Vuksic X 7 2 Also Present Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2/9/16,3/8/16,5/24/16,6128/16 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 14, 2016 continued to a future meeting Action: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue the June 14, 2016 minutes to a future meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with, Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: MISC 16-175 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID ABRAMOWTIZ, 8501 Skyline Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90046 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new two-car garage within the front yard 20' from back of curb. LOCATION: 74120 Parosella Street ZONE: R-1, Single-family residential Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal to approve a new two-car garage within the front yard 20' from back of curb. He presented an aerial of the property and pointed out where the garage will be located. Currently the property maintains a two- car carport and the applicant would be adding a garage to it. The code does allow, in older neighborhoods, for a garage or carport to be measured 20' from back of curb as long as it is reviewed and approved by this Commission. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans for the garage and had concerns with the new cinderblock not matching the existing cinderblock. The applicant MR. DAVID ABRAMOWITZ, applicant said he was keeping the same facade with the corrugated block, post and beam so it will all match. The Commission also discussed the garage door and suggested that the applicant work with staff on matching existing materials so that it will all be uniform. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve a new garage 20' from back of curb subject to: 1) working with staff on the type and style of cinderblock; 2) if the new cinderblock does not match the existing, then the old cinderblock shall be removed; and 3) all materials shall be uniform. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent 2. CASE NO.: MISC 16-187 G:\PlanningUanineJudMRC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EUGENIA MATTHEWS- GARNETT, 46265 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Exception to PDMC 25.40.080 "Fences and Walls" to allow for a wood fence visible from the public street. LOCATION: 46265 Burroweed Lane ZONE: R-2 8,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal for a 6' high wood fence visible from the public street. He stated the applicant contacted Building and Safety to ask if she needed a building permit for the wood fence and was told that a permit was not required. Unfortunately, the applicant took that answer as an approval to install the fence. However, if she would have come to the Planning Department, staff would have informed her that any wood facing a public street needs to be approved by this Commission. He presented photos of the location and materials of the fence. The portion that needs approval is the portion that faces the street, as well as the gate at 13' long and 6' high. He said the setback is 12' and a 6' high fence should be 20' behind curb that is why the applicant is seeking an exception. He mentioned there were people in attendance today who were in favor of and opposition to the wood fence. MS. EUGENIA MATTHEWS-GARNETT, applicant, asked if the Commission received a copy of her letter that she presented to staff. The Commission stated that it was included in their packet. MS. KRIS LUKA, neighbor, said she originally called the City when construction on the fence first started and asked if there were permits. She's not opposed to a fence if it is decorative and looks nice, however the applicant's house is elevated more than her property and it seems quite high. There is also additional fencing that goes back 80' from the front that now makes it 100' of fencing with a height up to 11' in certain places. She had originally suggested to the applicant to get a survey completed so she would know exactly where her property line was located. She is concerned that after a couple of years the fence will look weathered because of the heat. She said this fence completely eliminates her view for up to 100' and presented photos of the fencing. Chair Van Vliet asked if it was a masonry wall that goes back along the side GAPIanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 yard and MS. LUKA responded that it was a masonry wall and it runs along the property line. Commissioner Clark asked her if she had any architectural concerns. MR. BRYON CORNEILUS, attorney representing Ms. Luka, said architecturally there are two concerns. The first concern is that the wood is going to look bad after a few years. It will dry out,, fade and deteriorate unless it is maintained properly. In addition to that concern, the wood fence located in the driveway creates a line-of-sight issue as you are backing out of the driveway. MS. LUKA said the problem is the height at 11' not 6'. Commissioner Levin said the code does not take into the consideration the height of the pad. The wall is measured from the pad on the highest side. Mr. Swartz presented an aerial of the property with the wall in question. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the fence that is visible from the street and possible line-of-sight issues. Mr. Swartz reminded the Commission that the setback is 12' and a 6' high fence should be 20' behind curb. Commissioner Levin said the applicant would have to take 8' off to meet the setback requirement. Chair Van Vliet said if the fence goes to 5' then the setback would be 15' behind curb. MS. LUKA asked when wood fences were eliminated and Mr. Swartz said the Planning staff can approve a block wall over the counter as long as it meets the height and setback location; however, a wood or vinyl fence would have to come to this Commission for a material exception. MS. LUKA said she was told by the City that it was eliminated because of maintenance issues. MR. CORNEILUS said the fence was constructed in such a way that it only covers the backyard and the middle of the fencing still has old wood panels. It would seem that if this was done for beautification purposes then the entire fence should be beautified. Commissioner Lambell reminded him that the Commission looks at it only from the public right-of-way. MS. ROSE VAN HOOK, neighbor, said the new fence enhances the property and is in favor of it. MS. KAREN TATUM, neighbor, said she likes the fence and is not opposed to it. She pointed out that she has the same issues on her property line with high walls because of the golf balls. Commissioner Lambell said the fence looks substantial and appropriate and is definitely better than what is in the neighborhood. Unfortunately homeowners take chances when they GAPIanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 live on a golf course. MS. MATTHEWS-GARNETT said the materials she chose were architecturally compatible with her home and stated she will do whatever needs to be done to take care of the fence. Mr. Swartz indicated that the City has property maintenance ordinances where the fence would have to be maintained. Commissioner Clark said the fence works well with the architecture of the house and pointed out the need for maintenance on a regular basis. He felt that the gate needed a bit more design. Commissioner Colombini recommended a third leaf hinge on the gate due to its weight. Commissioner McAuliffe said architecturally the fence is consistent with the character of the home and agreed that maintenance would be the responsibility of the homeowner. He was concerned with how the fence encroaches into the right-of-way and said the exceptions are approved for exceptional cases and he wasn't sure what justifies this for an exception. There are setbacks for a reason and suggested pulling the panel back to comply. He thought the fence material and design were fine and the gate design is appropriate; however, he doesn't see a compelling reason to grant the exception. Mr. Swartz asked the applicant how far the fence was from the curb and she said 14' at 5-6" and 64". Mr. Swartz pointed out that at that height it would be 20'. He said if the applicant lowered the fence to 5' in height, it would only have to come back 1'. Commissioner McAuliffe said if the applicant lowered the fence to be in compliance with the City standard, there wouldn't be an issue. The Commission and applicant discussed the suggestions of reducing the height and moving the fence back by a foot to meet the height and setback requirement. Mr. Swartz said if anyone wants to appeal the Commission's decision, they have 15 days to file a formal appeal in the City Clerk's office. GAP1anning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.dou Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve subject to: 1) reducing height of wall from 5'-4" to 5' and 15' back from curb to meet the height and setback requirement; 2) staff will work with applicant. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 16-179 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MACK CUTTING, 76883 Oklahoma Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Exception to PDMC 25.40.080 "Fences and Walls" to allow for a 5' high block wall 12' behind the curb. LOCATION: 76883 Oklahoma Avenue ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal to allow a 5' high block wall 12' from back of curb. He presented an aerial of the home and pointed out the location of the wall. MR. MARK CUTTING, applicant, said he is asking for the exception because he would like to enhance the front yard and save the palm trees that would have to be removed to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Swartz reminded the Commission that the code allows a block wall 5' high 15' from back of curb and the applicant is asking for 12' back from curb. To comply with the ordinance, the applicant would have to remove the trees. He also mentioned that the applicant will redo the landscaping in the front. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve as proposed. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent GAPIanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 16-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75400 Gerald Ford Drive #115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving or denying the architectural design of a new 5,280-square-foot warehouse building. This item was continued from the June 14, 2016, ARC meeting to allow the applicant to make architecture modifications. The applicant did not make any changes and wants to discuss the proposed building design. LOCATION: 34751 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I., Service Industrial Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this item was continued from the June 14, 2016 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting for architectural modifications to a 5,280 square foot warehouse building. The Commissioner's comments were based on the proposed architectural style of a rectangular box building, and how they liked the split faced block, but suggested the applicant add more articulation. The architect was unable to attend the meeting on June 14, 2016 and staff notified the applicant after the meeting of the Commissioner's comments. The applicant met with staff and stated that he felt it was a good looking building and did not want to make the suggested modifications but wanted a chance to present the building plans to the Commission. Staff stated to the applicant that the Commission could approve it as presented today, the architect could make changes as suggested by the Commission, or the Commission could deny the proposed architectural design and the applicant could appeal to City Council. Commissioner Clark stated for the record that he was not present at the June 14, 2016 meeting, but since no action was taken on the item at that meeting, he asked if he would be able to participate in the discussion. Mr. Swartz responded that Commissioner Clark may participate in the discussion. Mr. Swartz stated that for today's meeting, the applicant has provided photos of other buildings similar to his building in and around the City. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, applicant, said he is GAP1anning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 proposing building plans that is similar to his other buildings and approved by this Commission before with good architecture. It is an industrial building, therefore, you have to create something nice while at the same time keep costs down. He said tilt-up for a building of this size will be too expensive so he went with concrete split face block that has a nice look. He pointed out other existing buildings in the area and noted that all of the buildings, with the exception of three, were his. Those three buildings were approved by the City and all have higher heights and a lot more exposed building without any real articulation. He prefers his building design because it is all concrete block and looks like a desert building and regional in style. Therefore, he is asking the Commission to approve this project. He added that this type of building will be good for the City because start up businesses can go in at a lower cost. He pointed out that he is not asking the Commission to do something that they haven't done in the past. This building is in an area that isn't on the main street and most people won't see it from the street. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the large band on the building would be used for signage. Chair Van Vliet referred to the elevation that is exposed and said the other elevation could also potentially be exposed. MR. RICCIARDI said the building is built to the property line and referred to the building across the street that is also built up on the property line with no articulation at all. Chair Van Vliet said his point was that it could be a fully exposed building depending on when the future building was constructed. MR. RICCIARDI said that is why they have a rich wall and is well done. Commissioner Lambell had concerns with the south elevation because it has no articulation except for the color change with the band. MR. RICCIARDI said it is on the property line so you wouldn't get much articulation. Chair Van Vliet stated again that it may be exposed depending on how the future building is constructed. MR. RICCIARDI referred back to one of the other buildings approved by the Commission and stated it has no articulation and it is a lot higher than the one he's presenting and it was approved. Chair Van Vliet pointed out that this Commission is only reviewing this building, not the others. MR. RICCIARDI said the wall will have rich landscaping that will add to it and will have split faced block that will compliment the landscaping. MR. RICCIARDI said this Commission needs to be consistent. Commissioner Levin said times have changed and this Commission doesn't have to be consistent with a decision that was GAPIanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 made in the past. We are looking at this building with today's standards and what we feel is architecturally appropriate. MR. RICCIARDI said if we have something that is rich and everybody likes it and it's been used before, then why wouldn't it be approved. Commissioner Levin said if everybody likes it we wouldn't be having this conversation. MR. RICCIARDI said the last thing he wants to do is go to the City Council, as he has done in the past and even though it was successful it created a lot of problems. Commissioner Lambell said this Commission is trying to raise the level of what is expected from every applicant in the City of Palm Desert and we are asking for something that makes this building stand out. MR. RICCIARDI felt he has done that with this building; it is nice, good looking, and stands out. He has done a tremendous amount of nice industrial buildings in the city and he's never had anyone tell him that his industrial buildings were not nice looking. Industrial buildings have to be brought in for a certain price, therefore, you have to get tenants to spend a little less. We have to do things that are nice, good looking, and within budget. That's what industrial buildings and industrial parks are all about and that is why they are located in specific locations. Commissioner McAuliffe asked what the horizontal band material was and how many courses high. MR. RICCIARDI said it was concrete block and fluted and was two courses high per band. It will stick out somewhat to create a shadow line. Commissioner McAuliffe asked the applicant if he felt this building has the same level of architectural articulation or expression as the other buildings. MR. RICCIARDI said the articulation is in the texture of the material with a lot of ins and outs and shadows that create a lot of texture. The other buildings have no texture except for paint color. He stated that all the new buildings in the city are modern steel and aluminum buildings and he wants to bring the richness back to the City by doing regional architecture. MR. RICCIARDI said if the Commission wants more articulation, he would add another band or make the bands deeper. He is open to suggestions. Commissioner McAuliffe said that is what they were trying to communicate. Commissioner McAuliffe said he understands that this is an industrial building and building a shoebox is by far the most efficient shape and makes sense for the price point. He believes there is an opportunity as an architect to add additional character to the building; joint work, larger regions of texture, and additional fluted texture. MR. RICCIARDI said the Commission is asking him to do GAPlanningUanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 something that he didn't quite understand and if they could make a recommendation then he would have a better understanding. Commissioner McAuliffe said within the two textures there is a potential to make the band wider. He referred to a masonry building in Indio that is a rectangular box and they used two different tile colors. He is not proposing the applicant to do that, but they used very simple materials that added character to something that was entirely utilitarian. Again MR. RICCIARDI said that he is asking the Commission to make a suggestion and tell him exactly what they want and approve the project. Commissioner McAuliffe said that staff has given him suggestions several times. He said the band at the top makes sense. However, the band that runs around the middle has a lot more opportunity to do something there, possibly by extending portions of that band all the way to the ground to help define the entrance. Commissioner McAuliffe said what the applicant has done on the building is far more visually appealing than the other buildings; however, he needs to raise the bar. MR. RICCIARDI said the 50,000 square foot building and the 5,000 square foot building are two different things. Commissioner McAuliffe said if it doesn't look good it doesn't matter how big or small it is. As a Commission, this is a standard we are held to. Commissioner McAuliffe suggested taking the fluted texture and wrapping the corner so that it reaches all the way to the ground to create a mass. MR. RICCIARDI said he would be glad to do that on the ends and asked for them to put that in a motion and get this project approved today. Chair Van Vliet said the best thing for the applicant to do is to make the necessary changes and bring them back to the Commission. MR. RICCIARDI said he wants an approval today because his client wants to move forward. Mr. Swartz said it appears that the Commission is suggesting a continuance to allow the applicant to review the Commissioner's comments and bring a revision back to the next ARC meeting. Chair Van Vliet concurred with Mr. Swartz and also stated that the project could be denied then the applicant could appeal it to the City Council. MR. RICCIARDI said an appeal would take a long time and preferred not to go in that direction. He said he would redraw the plans and bring it back to the next ARC meeting. Commissioner Clark encouraged the applicant to continue working with staff on the rough drawings. Mr. Swartz mentioned that if a couple of Commissioners were willing to meet with staff and the GAPIanningUanineJudMRC\1Minutes\2016\160712min.docx Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2016 applicant, it could be arranged. Chair Van Vliet agreed this could help move this project forward. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case PP 16-76 subject to applicant working with staff on the building design based on comments provided by the ARC Commissioners. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:50 p.m. KEVIN SWARTZ ASSOCIATE PLANNER SECRETARY �k RMJQDJY RDIWG SECRETARY G\PlanningVanineJudy\ARCIlMinutes\2016\160712min.dwx Page 11 of 11