Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-27 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2018 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 20 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 18 2 Allan Levin X 20 Michael McAuliffe X 18 2 Jim McIntosh X 16 4 John Vuksic X 17 3 Open Position Also Present Ryan Stendeli, Director, Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2/27/18,4110/18 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 23, 2018 Action: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve the October 23, 2018 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. ARCHITECTURAL RE ,W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 18-0011 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GORDON STEIN, Design Mind Studio, P.O. Box 790, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a height exception on a single-family residential home to 17'-6" and a wall height exception for a 6' high wall in the front yard. LOCATION: 48-234 Silver Spur Trail ZONE: P.R.-7: Mr. Nick Mellon!, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal for a roof height exception on a single-family residence on Silver Spur Trail (Silver Spur) that exceeds the maximum 15' and with the Commission's approval. this can extend to 18'. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the site plan showing the portions of the roof extending to 17'-6". Mr. Melloni said the home can be described - as a contemporary take with some mid-century modem elements with the slanted roof. Most of the home is under the.15' threshold, however, the portions that extend above that help provide breaks to the massing of the home. Mr. Melloni explained that the applicant is also requesting a height exception on an over-height wall and said this can be granted based on the findings summarized in the staff report. He described the layout of the home and said many of the homes along Silver Spur have over-height walls near the street curb and presented a photo of the neighboring fence. He explained that the general standard of the code limits this neighboring fence to a maximum height of 3'76", however, it is just under 6' and the right-of-way ends 5' back from the curb. He said the maximum allowed height of the wall is dependent on the distance from the face of the curb, not the property line. He showed additional photos of fences and walls along Silver Spur, as well as a tiered retaining wall that is similar to what the applicant is proposing. Staff is recommending approval of the plans as shown, as well as the exception for the additional height of the fence. G.'Tianning'Julne Judy\ARC\7 Minutes12018\701127min.docz Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE% . V COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 Commissioner Lambell referred to the portions of the roof extending over the height limit and asked if this was 50% of the roof coverage. Mr. Melloni said based on a visual assessment, he thought it was less than 50% and pointed out that the majority of the roof massing is under the 15' threshold. Commissioner Levin reviewed the pool and questioned the setbacks to ensure that the pool wasn't encroaching into the setback. Mr. Mellon! said the setback for the pool is 5' from the front property line. The Commission reviewed the proposed wall and the 15' setback from the curb face. Chair Van Wet said according,to the site plan it didn't look like 15'. Commissioner Levin said it looks like the bulk of the pool is within the 20' setback. The Commission expressed some confusion with the plans. Mr. Melloni said what the Commission was looking at was the first submittal. He explained that he had received a full-size set of corrected plans from the applicant after the Commission received their ARC packets and the new plans clarify the setback. He explained that he had written a corrections letter which asked the applicant to clarity that, but unfortunately the same plan was t resubmitted. On the latest set of plans, he was only provided a single set and the digital submittal didn't show these changes. Mr. Melloni provided the updated set of plans for the Commission's review. Chair Van Viet asked if there was a grading plan showing the elevations and the wall heights. Mr. Melloni provided the draft precise grading plan and pointed out that the portion they were inquiring about was 14' from the back of curb. The Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the height of the wall, top of curb and top of wall. Commissioner McIntosh asked if there was a side section through there. Mr. Melloni stated this was not provided by the applicant. Chair Van Vllet pointed out that there is a pretty critical height issue on the wall and said the street probably goes down 5' with a big grade differential. Commissioner McIntosh said the low wall is 6' above the curb and thought it was within the code. Mr. Mellon! said the low wall is within the code because the height is taken from the finished grade. The Commission continued to discuss their concerns with the height of the walls, the grading plan, and the setbacks for the pool. G.WlanningVeNne JudyWRMI Mlnute512018U 81127min.dou Page 3 of 11- ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 Commissioner Levin referred to the finished floor and said it is 6' higher than the house next door and asked if that was acceptable. MR. GORDON STEIN, homeowner's representative, explained the street falls away from the house at the curb at the corner. He referred to one of the earlier photos of the wall on the neighboring property with a 6'wall within 5' of the street. He said they are trying to deal with this corner and suggested they lower the outer wall down and step that grade. The reason they put the additional walls in was to act as a step grade to soften the visual from the street by taking out the slope and have planting in the front of the taller wall to soften and mitigate it. He also said the main thing is having a privacy wall for the front yard pool area. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if the street goes down on the rendering image and MR. STEIN said it wasn't reflected exactly that way. Commissioner McIntosh said if the rendering was accurate and the street went down, it would really be a little more exaggerated in that corner. MR. STEIN again pointed out that they can work those outer walls to create a means to soften the main wall that provides some privacy. Commissioner McIntosh said he understands the intent but was worried about the profile and exactly how high that's going up that close to the street. They reviewed the grading plans for the top of curb and how the pad is elevated above the curb. Commissioner McIntosh said the 3-D image looks good but just imagine what it would look like if that street went down 5' instead of level. He thinks the profiles at that corner of the property are going to be quite high. MR. STEIN said to get some privacy on the pool portion they can work those walls down on the corner. He said he will provide the Commission with a street elevation to show a solution. Commissioner McIntosh also requested profiles through the walls and cross 'sections to see what this will really look like. Commissioner Levin asked if the approved grading plan has changed since the original approval. Mr. Mellon! said this grading plan was from 1978 before the City was incorporated. Commissioner Levin wondered if that was an approved pad 'grade at some point and time or if they added dirt to raise it up. Commissioner Lambell discussed the code requirement for the heights of the walls and MR. HUGO ZERVANTES, contractor, said they are asking for the wall exception for the wall at 6' tall and 14' GAPlanningUanine Judy\ARMIMinutes\2018\181127min.do= ,Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION MINUTES ' November 27, 2018 from the curb. Chair Van Vliet said.they have room to shift the pool back, but the applicant is electing to push it above the top of curb. Mr. Melloni said it is taken from finished grade on the outside portion of the wall. The Commission discussed the wall heights and was .concerned with the public's perspective. MR. STEIN suggested they adjust the pool wall down to 5', meet code as it relates to access, and lower the retaining walls.down to step properly, probably even doing a triple retaining wall. Commissioner McIntosh said this Commission can approve the variance given the walls have architectural merit. MR. STEIN said they will keep the main wall on the pool where it is and drop it down to 5' off the deck side and work the code issues back through and see if they can make that look good. They will come back with a nice set of elevation shots along the street side and slice through it to show sections all the way along. He said he will also submit a revised set of grading plans. Chair Van Vliet asked the Commissioners if they had any concerns With the architecture of the home, the roof heights or how it may impact the neighboring homes. Commissioner McIntosh said this was a great design and the only concern he had was that all the other homes this Commission has approved above the 15' roof height tend to be more center mass of the building and this request seems to be towards the edges. He asked if this issue was described in the code. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner answered no and said it is based on architectural merit. Chair Van Vliet said the tallest portion is the roof plane at the entry at 17'-6". Commissioner Levin pointed out the existing residence on the other side and discussed the finished grade and top of wall only being 2' higher than that property. He said if privacy is an issue and if there's only a 2' wall between them, they're not going to see much because they are looking at the back of the house and the garage next door. He asked the applicant to revisit the property line. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue subject to: 1) providing a completed plan submittal; 2) providing cross section detail for walls along Silver Spur Trail; and 3) redesign walls along Silver Spur Trail to reduce mass and visibility from public realm. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. GAPIanningManlnoJudy\ARCk1Mhutes\201B\181127min.doca Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE_ _ W COMMISSION - MINUTES November 27, 2018 2. CASE NO: MISC 18-0024 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: KRIS HANSEN, 30931 Black Horse, Canyon Lake, CA 92587 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a materials exception for a wood fence in the front yard. LOCATION: 74-125 Setting Sun Trail ZONE: R-1: Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to approve an existing 42" tall wooden fence located in the front yard of the property approximately 21'from the curb face. The proposal requires approval of an exception to the fence and wall standards of the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) for the use of a non-conforming material (wood) along a public frontage. He presented PowerPoint photos of the home and fence prior to the changes, as well as current photos of the home and fence. He said there is also a new low wooden fence located in the front of the property. In June 2018, the property was cited' by Code Compliance for unpermitted construction, including extensive exterior renovations. Changes included modification to the entry archway, windows, a roof shingle change, paint color change; construction of a new wood fence along Setting Sun Trail (Setting Sun) and replacement of an existing wooden fence along Black Rabbit Road (Black Rabbit). The applicant is in the ,process of obtaining building permits for the unpermitted building changes. PDMC Section 25.40.080 Fences and Walls (fence code), contains standards for fence placement, fence height, permissible wall and fence materials, and fence design. The height and location of the fence complies with standards listed in the fence code; however, the fence code does not permit the use of wood material in fences facing street frontage. The wood fence along Black Rabbit replaces an existing wood fence and because the new fence is located in the same area, and the same height as the former wood fence, it is considered legal non-conforming. Mr. Melloni pointed out that the new fence in the front yard area is subject to the current fence code and does not conform to material requirements. He went through the exceptions to the standards of the fence code that would be granted by the Architectural Review GAPlenningVenine Judy\ARM1Minutes=1 Ski 81127min.dou Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REV, _V COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 Commission (ARC). He recommended that the applicant provide additional landscaping in the front yard between the street curb and fence. If the ARC approves the exception with any design changes, staff recommends that these changes also apply to the replacement wood fence located along Black Rabbit to ensure consistency. If the ARC denies the exception, only the new fence in the front yard can be removed; the replacement fence is considered a continuation of a legal non-conforming use/structure. Commissioner McIntosh asked why staff is recommending approval and Mn Mellon! said it is staff's interpretation that the changes made to the house make it consistent with the fence being replaced. Commissioner McIntosh asked what the code states regarding the percentage of replacement. Mr. Ceja said a couple years ago, a committee evaluated and made an amendment to the ordinance for fences and walls to allow people to replace existing wood fences, keeping them, in the same location, and relatively having the same design. He said.the Commission should take into consideration that this no longer conforms to the code since it appears to have a new design, it is placed closer to the street and is taller. The Commission reviewed and discussed the fence and Chair Van Wet thought at this stage the Commission should deny the request. Commissioner McIntosh made a motion to deny and Commissioner Lambell made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for further discussion. Mr. Melloni said staff has received comments from adjacent neighbors saying that the color of the home is too bright. After visiting the site, he recommends a color change to taupe, tan or some other earth tones to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. In addition, the exterior light sources are unshielded and suggested they use the existing code for those items. Commissioner McIntosh asked about the complaints and Mr. Mellon! said a few neighbors are concerned that the fence was not well-constructed and after his site visit, he has to agree. He said the rails are very thin, probably less than an inch, and not finished. Commissioner Levin asked about the house color and asked if the City has a requirement of the color. At this point, several people were talking all at once making it hard to transcribe. Chair Van Vliet reminded the Commission of the motion for denial. G9P1ann1n&anlne JudyWRCUMinutes12018U81127min.doox Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE' W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 ACTION: Commissioner McIntosh moved to deny Case MISC 18-0024 subject to: 1) all wooden fences constructed without proper approvals, 2) wooden fence material incompatible with architecture of home; and 3) the new wooden fence, located along Black Rabbit Road, to replace previous wooden fence constitutes an expansion of a legal non-conforming use.. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: CUP 17-0023 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: THE LEAF at 73740, LLC a California Limited Liability Company, 72650 Fred Waring Drive#202, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve final drawings: The Leaf. LOCATION: 73740 El Paseo ZONE: D Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented final construction drawings for the Commission's review. When it came forward this past summer, the Commission asked the applicant to revisit the front and rear elevation cornice detail, adjust the solarium on the front elevation to preserve the benches, add a dimmer for lighting strength on the front elevation, and adding a fire riser room. They have made all these changes and the designer is here to run us through the changes. Chair Van Vliet asked the designer where the fire riser room was located and to describe the revisions based on the suggestions of the Commission. MR: STEPHAN STEPHANOFF,. designer DPK Group, after trying to locate the room on the plans said he wasn't sure where the room was located. Commissioner McIntosh asked for the fire sprinkler plan and MR. STEPHANOFF said it was submitted with the main package. He described how they moved around the benches and the umbrellas so as to fit the sidewalk and the public- right-of way. The Commission and the designer discussed the solarium on the front elevation and Commissioner McAuliffe asked if GAPIwningVaninaJudy\ARC\1Minut s\2018\181127mindo" Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RED' V COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 this cants over the sidewalk and if they checked for ADA headroom clearance because it becomes a caning issue if you have too much slope. The designer was unsure about that. Commissioner Lambell said the designer didn't have'the answers for what the Commission was looking for. She told him he was sent as the sacrificial Iamb and until he has all the answers this will not get approved. So rather than spend more time shuffling papers, she told the designer to go away and come back to a future meeting with all the point by point changes and give this Commission a proper presentation. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue continued Case CUP 17-0023 subject to: 1) incorporating the fire sprinkler plan into plan drawings; 2) providing the location of the fire riser room; and 3) providing an updated set of plans to show all changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES and Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 18-0004 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AT&T MOBILITY CORP. 1452 . Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a design review to,install a two sector wireless facility on the rooftop of The Steakhouse at BIGHORN on the Canyons side. LOCATION: 312 Canyon Drive ZONE: P.R:(5): Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal from AT&T to install a two (2)-sector wireless facility on the rooftop of the Steakhouse at BIGHORN on'the Canyons side that is only visible from residents within Bighorn. This has been reviewed and approved by the HOA. He presented photos of the project, as well as the construction plans and the roof plan. Staff is asking for a recommendation to move this forward to the Planning Commission. GAPImninVanmeJud,WFglMlnutes=la9iat127min.docx Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE ,.._'W COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 MS. MELISSA FRANCISCO, AT&T, stated this is a design consideration from Bighorn to incorporate this into their existing structures. She said there is one currently on the Clubhouse and the other will be located across the street at the Vault. The Commission reviewed the plans and said since this is not visible from any public street and it has been approved by the Bighorn HOA they recommended approval. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Wet voting YES and Vuksic absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 18-0006 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AT&T MOBILITY CORP., 1452 Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a design review to install a three sector wireless facility on the rooftop: The Vault at BIGHORN. LOCATION: 182 Metate Place ZONE: P.R.(5): Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate, Planner, presented a proposal from AT&T to install a three (3)-sector wireless facility on the rooftop of the Vault at Bighorn. He said this has been reviewed and approved by the HOA and presented photos of the project, as well as the construction plans and the roof plan. Staff is asking for a recommendation to move this forward to the Planning Commission. He said this will not be too visible and it was noticed within Bighorn. Commissioner Levin asked if this will be visible from any of the homes on Cahuilla. Mr. Swartz said the residents will have an opportunity to talk at Planning Commission. GAPlanningUanine JUAy\ARC\1 Mlnutes=18\181127min.dou Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL RE' N COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2018 ACTION: Chair Van Vliet moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS The Commission and staff discussed Paseo Hotel, as well as providing the Commission with updated plans either in their packet or providing them at the meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 1:40 p.m. ERIC CEJN' PRINCIPAL PL NER SECRETARY JAM UD RE6dA5DING SECRETARY G.\PlanningUanlne JudyURC\1Minutes\2018\181127min.dom Page 11 of 11 _