The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMISC 06-04 Uphold ARC Action G.Bazik 45-751 Edgehill Dr.REQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Uphold an Architectural Review Commission action denying a request for approval of a color change to an existing single family residential house located at 45-751 Edgehill Drive. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Gary Bazik 45-751 Edgehill Dr Palm Desert, Ca 92260 CASE NO: Misc. 06-04 DATE: June 26, 2008 CONTENTS: Exhibits Architectural Review Commission Minutes Request for City Council Review Form Recommendation: That by minute motion the City Council reaffirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) denying the proposed color change to an existing single family residential house. Executive Summary: Approval of the staff recommendation will require that a single family home be repainted to colors in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Denial of the staff recommendation would allow the home at 45-751 Edgehill Drive to remain as it was recently painted by the owner. Background: On December 11, 2003 the City Council approved Zoning Ordinance 1015A of Section 25.56 General Provisions to add Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications, which states: 'The colors of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence or other improvements to real property that are visible from public Staff Report Misc 08-215 June 26, 2008 Page 2 of 3 right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission upon appeal. This shall be a no fee process. For the purposes of this section "significantly changed" means a change in hue, shade or intensity of color." The applicant painted his home without obtaining approval from the Director of Community Development. Several neighbors have subsequently complained about the colors used. The applicant has appealed the Director's decision to the ARC and, finally, to the City Council. Discussion: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant's home is part of a 14 single family residential subdivision. When the homes were built back in 2002 the developer chose desert colors such as tan, off- white, cream and brown in different moderations to blend into the mountains directly behind the homes. The original color of the applicant's home was an off creamy white. The applicant repainted the exterior of the home without obtaining approval per Section 25.56.510 to non -desert colors that are not in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant painted the base of the house Savannah Sun, trim of the house Legendary Gray, and the garage and front doors Golden Wash. The rear of the house is painted Savannah Sun on one side and Golden Wash on the other. Staff was notified regarding the repainting of the home from numerous neighbors calling in and complaining regarding the colors the applicant selected. Code Enforcement cited the applicant and requested the applicant receive approval from the Director of Community Development. Upon conducting a field investigation, staff found that the colors chosen by the applicant did not match the surrounding neighborhood. Staff suggested that the applicant repaint the garage door and front doors from Golden Wash to a desert color to match the neighborhood. The applicant prefers the current color scheme, and appealed to the ARC for approval. The proposed project was presented to the ARC on May 27, 2008. Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the ARC denied the applicant's current color scheme subject to the applicant submitting a new color scheme consistent with the neighborhood the motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:\Planning\Kevin Swam \ Word \ARC Review\4575 I Edgehill appeal to CC.doe Staff Report Misc 08-215 June 26, 2008 Page 3 of 3 II. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Architectural Review Commission found the colors selected by the applicant not consistent with the existing neighborhood. They required the applicant to re -submit a new color scheme that blends with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends that the ARC decision be upheld. Submitted By: )(L-z, Kevin Swartz '— Assistant Planner Approval: Homer Croy ACM for Devel Carlos L. Orte City Manager ment Services Department Head: 1uri Aylaian Director, Community Development ::ITY COUNCIL �I4CTION: APPROVED DENIED RECEIVED OTHER !MEET I N AYES: NOES: ABSENT:, Air�t� ABSTAIN: A/ VERIFIED BY: -)riginal on DATE • CA _R J i/pnn File wi 4 City Clerk's Of fire G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\ARC Review\45751 Edgehill appeal to CC.doc �� •� � � � `, � ,�E{�p .s ; � k ry�.�A�3�-a� .., ��s� 4 �fi i� E ,,, u , ;.., � . ... .. . , " � `. � � s ,�� ;.' ��. s � S:,R . � . �i„t�� 5 dt � �'� .. �'� � �[ �Y{ .�a. �: J � � � � � � ,_- �� !. :, A �� ,� ��. � , � � � ��";�` � �'. �� ' � r�;t�� g k�� x., �v 'r.. � . ' �r � . y � �' �� ' �� ;� � ti t � kt�s F'�' . . .. r��:� ��' '�+� , �� . ,�."�' �a �(�� rS � � �f�� . . � . 'yh� � &�c �� r r`,,. �,';'��'y� �a4" �r � �; " ��: � . � �'� � � 'r� 'p� �. x .. ��`r, H��k;, W"+�,..: p'� �t, ��-.1 tFy{,.af� � Y �''",� "�, ��... �.; N, *"ro� � 9 �xi.��A^' . . h P t '� g}�t qq `. �,a fii �� "'a��i�� *w . �,�c[�" �' � � )`�k d� , �; � i„�'. ' a. t r d ;�� ' �,� '� . 'r`�'� �� d� `�-�� N1z� .� �.� �.��u�` � � ��i t � � �. � '�`� �av f � �� 5 � ,�' � rd ,�r � �� - � f t. .�� y�� E �+w.2�� , {�/�' �,,. � �� : tr r �a�.iy. '� � �F ,��. �� `% -� �' �� "a�,,n„.��"�'��.. ��'�� ..��y�� ,�w^ � a� a� ..w � S� �'"�$� ;,�, )t °1�I� ��.rH"�� i� f.;� y � .. � � . ��'� r � ��.�}}��d �.3 i'�"' `�t'� � � � vk'� �1 ? r�r `�� °�u��3 . � �� , �- � � �� 3,� ��y %� �'�`� � `i""��6 °� �� t'� 3� � a /�r��`4�'' :?a+°'�"d �� i h�N }d � r^��,�� „ v�t�. � � 9 �� r �� 3+�y�" � � "��, w ' �'`{ � v `�.�,"��•�. @ "^3` , Z :"�� . '�"�� ..;°d^, ' Y �d a� �'",�i�' � �,a�� : ,�"'� .. �� .�x� ' '� � �i��yl f k �M� � yx�� )�1.�A `"�b� "9"' ,� .. `y�,-,X+Y+ � .:.x � �"��"�'� ��`^a 3 aR`x � R . °��; � ,�."�^w � �" a �+`�h.� � �'+;-'`� g�.,� 5`� �.,.� � 4"�"�� d� ��'� � �"yY�n � �� ` .t�G?'�a `��r Y� � ��,��g� y i, �� ,��`��,@`rti,* -f' x } �� *A"�F'e,'��tq�,.w`�� t ��. � a � �� °��°i k uRn.' �. a �t�� y�` � c�i� Ai'x✓a,- �waX�7��ra��""`�" � ` d` � a��z o-4 '�'�.�N'��" �4�. ,�, � , T��. �. ltt.� , .<....e x�e��`� . "a. � «�` �,,, � � . �i' d, � dR.}.�� ?�r"�i �w '` : x �) � a �t�*'"� 4 Yp ^ � . $^�� . e� _.�;� � �, �� y � , t F t � ��„,�.�'%. ��d��.e � . ��_k � . ` . �. 1 „'f , �p�#; � � t �� $ L . *� �� r;'• � n- ° � y � T �; �� ht, �' `::m �tr r ,,�.� d �t' � � � � � � � � . ; �3`: f �a�'a.a`r � ,ty;`v,,-iS:,a ' C` �- �vp "as�?"a �brei�w .... �" A� '.uS` �Y` .. N�� a�" �5'� F� a� '�„'��`�, �� ,�e�>�;, ��`�€�� " � � � , � ��: �� s :� ~� �� . /�. �`m„� . "�`p .� ��. u �� '�� G v�>y E �'.' "� ��b�q�� . „{ d.,� �, s,g � 7) t � ,S 4� � � � �` � �� \ '*�i �r �a�r '"��g "�*� ,�� ¢s, g E��w� . � � � ah� x , �V 'r'3� �y '�U`� � � �� r`'k sx � x ks ��3 ��x3 � , �"�r �,�' , 4 � � �it�`y� s a �� i � ,/. P�5Wp'�„ � C,,'t �M n� '\ t',f'� d�� d� e�r� ... .... �� "� � � � ��',�`� ��'r�e�'�` Y. 3 ; x �:�. '�"�: f �1�f t�, �'a� i �# )ii b ��, � ,.. ��e)� � � � ��st£�s�c �, ��` � � , ➢ p � � t, a � ,v�� "r" �� :�� „' �p`f t �� d�^- �'� � �� a�?� �D , � '� �, � � � �.,� �,. � _ �d� ,� �� z � a��g�a f�j°� a�V � ;a� �`�� 7l�y' �(Di �, r �;� s �»,;�,�� ;�'�� 's t !) x �� ,�¢��%"� �'i �t,' t��`��,� ,;v� �.�,-0 ��,�� y� - " k , � t �� p��+�t�� 4I �* : . =iiR �� x�� l� 7-, I d{,( � . . . . ... .�. . . .... . i�: (� t M � � � � P �. ( `� I. ) � t . � �E��'�^;� � } C t I �� H �G �'� E �P �� . �y�v, �. c�� ` Dy. �� , �� .. �= , � . t i ��. �,.G X i �,�. e � ,«v �' � g; � �: � � �� : � �� yi F=' i � ;� �� k �� f �� -0 � � � � �� . � � �� . � �' � � � �a � i�. � j � A e .. �� tiP � � t V • • r # �l° i � � F "�a�� 'l�f d 4 f �^ 7�. '� �g� , .,.. .�� , �M�, 7. 3�`, � ,.e � � � � ,`r �` �� '� ��) , , �_. � .: �� , �, .. (� . � . �i F �' ' . �;�w''€Yt� � y . � I�) ; ��... �. � k i1�� . a ..y� �. . ,,e ..�,_. , � p,y u � �`� ��,-`� � �` �a��. e ' � �� , � �� . w � : �. + , °'�S � � ��II�� r �.f. �`R��P� `��i�-j�,�.R�,� �A s -:..`«:,�� _ �:. ,� ., � . �,�_ _ � µ , �., � � � �as. «� � . ��r�r �� „Y, ;9�"�' „Y '�,'^l�`> � a1 �� ,. ,'4��r^y � . f AS �`�� ' �. .3`�� '�` ; � � t,Y � 1 � " , `,� ra�.��ir�,+t��7� �� . �. �v i 1�f} . ? � �f ° `�i��yyy,� � �. � �,'��Y� r �� *��* 7° Y'�S F y r� } � �* �z i`s�!`!` t � �,�. � � s 7�g' r r � � r�� P ,'°•. �p ` �,�� ; i � , y. y � . A �� _ .�r P �� 5�,Y�� p�•�7 x�� .. 1 � � ��?�� s �� ,` ` "'`�vG`�^�}� E� ?`�.1� y�Y�rm , +� � m�`� E � ,."'.i 1 p�'+' ) �r"�'F�'t . .«c', � ,I�� N��'�.� � � ��,!�y`��r�'� t'9`� � ^�'Y' ��j'3��Y�;�.,�. . A {.' � � ' � � �� T��. �� :„ � � ; x � � �.�� _,,. ��;��,��,�,,� .�_� f,� °�� ( `�� Y ��F ��; � �' ^r� � �_ , , ,�,- � � `; y,'� �`�� ' � &� �` �` ��y+�" � �� € r r �� , ��*�� 1 �'_ �" � ;., �'" �:" �' ,',?x��y(�'� 3 �'.� � �C � ,`� , <k x ��"'.� �� f �'�� ; ss ��`��f zs � �� x, i , � �� , ��<, n ��,�: Z,i�, . ��,�a, Y`�� *�(�m^x . v � � �� a�i��t5�}�3. k ..� `�..��dda§ 5 �` � � �,. 'F�k �k ��, i � a � �� T.tv` . a�a..f { a; § �� '� . �� d � ,�� i� �� p �'" � � � ' , s s �L�' w� � �' �,�; .'- e ; `,� ¢� �1�,: �� +s��0�a k 4. - i ..y 3 .T.� . �}^�Skd9 : �.:,�.��1' �. . ..� � °r � e.� 3 °� , -- 4 , /, w`" � . � � �t, � . , §f&r,i,, . ' � t"R,� � .F � % , ' ��;i F � y'��y�� {�i�� f�� Y4e'"' b� 1 �i�� .. � f J� �4..�$!. � T �+� ' t�r �lh' �' I {�4� � � � � �� i� a � N�' �:3� v � � ¢-� �� , ,�,� �� '�� .�' �, � � � � � 1 � � � 1 � � �� ,:; �� 't7r k��,n ��1��' p +'�:+ � � �� t,��.��8�r � ,,� §> �S�s; � �� y,�,�� c �" a�„k€�� +fi�n. �� s+� i ` . ` �',��;F , ; � �� sn ¢� � 3�7`� ��,`";��"� �,"'� �� m e. � 7a�°� ��as�r- r� �� ' �� A� � �i�+`„�q� � ��` '�A�'�`�,� �w�� ',�,?, � e+�� r-� k" �;� + G"� e"£� a .� } f �`t j�, � i .�Y v � �" t 4�+�x�1 1 $��.. m�A ��'� � �� r y � e ��, �� yp�` � ..: �, �g. , ,jp �� y. '.� ° � k � �$�e 7� � ' ,�wd : r�.��-; � a� �'� b k�� 'i �a,s � a"� '°� "� � r �s q� ,� ` ��" �' � au��"""�`� a�� s �; � ,� � ., � � �,qy'' '��S€ a $� ; m ' '� � , � 1� .� ,� ��' �, +��, F� � y^�,�e� nfiu@FKK�^�s��` �� Pt � . I ti , ad�e�� ; � � �s. .��3 . `� , �� .�v �' '�; g . �,t. :.�- ;,� �' "�� ;,t�.yk ( . ��'� �$@i9;. ��'.. 5'� �' w:�„��, . . ��, �� ; � ' �� r, �V.. � �?t.�� . . � E�� „ak'� .� � o . k � ° ��. ,{ �^` � �� - ��. x�A � �f �' ° �.W: � 1 k � �� `�� ~�� ,�.n �"� va �°;'F�`�A€� �� ' ,,�^� �. �� H.'.. ,s� .a A=,_ .�� ' .�.�,"t,� ��.� s3�°i' '��"�'��'� � ,"i �g �i�{. � � �. E��,y ��.�. " ,g',�,�t-� b ��w �" (ra��a:.nz. m � y�� 5u� ` � � 4 TC � "^'��9� A' ; � i �� ,�. . #i��;:, �' � �,� ��t,� ��,,' �' ��- .... , � s< , . _ � �� a � • ,� � � � r r,�{��k �� r ,�, � ` ��" � � rn , �� ,� � � a , �, � '� ' ., V Z �'4 � � 'nv � k �'�\ `b . -�. ° J � �� `�' � �� i . ` ` � � � � �� . � � � �" � � t �; ; � ; ","�� e�.: �r� �� ,�`F,.�, � �:: � � R ' {'� (r, . �'��f �,N„�'1 V �� 1�� 4F � �� '�Yl� � "��`: t �,r � � � i'".� � '_ . ' �.. � h�3 , ^�� "+�' �� } }�T�?��'� �Fc"�'��'^ t1 ' r+ „r �` �( �' ��+ u G �.«:�. �. W� J 3 �'e C� 2 � @ g� YA 5� ��`f.�"��" "�' },�,�mN.�`E� �. d�d� �u:84v� � {�ir=..�_ '��y t.✓"'�''"J��.� ��.�� '�` '�,.� *�" t �'k'z�'} � ' � a 4 ��` � y ; t '��' '" � S r ��. ��' � , � ''� �� x S. '"�+, �''��v;3""� � �^ �t;,�,��a��,'��"t k J,:r. � �'„r ��„' +l"v°,�:� y�v�„ a h i � F� Pd�.i� � ,V�,��`".�y"'�1��'�.�G ��"�,�� , �� u � �sa� � .�3 z�� t�'��".�t� r,, �r �� %� t � } �. ��* � ' �`��S'�'�`�.1 �e'�i�'.. " tp � r� � " ",s �'%.; � '�' ir �„. ° +c � v ..., � r „�: � . i�� ,i.,..: ��T�` ' . �; �� ' :t � . tp� „ a ' . r1 i A s May 28, 2008 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: MISC 08-215 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY BAZIK, 45-751 Edgehill Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of house color change. LOCATION: 45-751 Edgehill Drive ZONE: R-1 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission denied applicanYs current color scheme subject to the applicant submitting a new color scheme consistent with the neighborhood. Date of Action: May 27, 2008 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 27, 2008 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ann Barryington, representative for Radiant Barrier and a resident of Palm Desert presented a product that she distributes for insulation. She wanted to introduce this Title 24, Energy Star and LEAD approved product and was looking for assistance to implement this product into the building codes here in the valley. Mr. Stendell stated that the Building Board of Appeals has a function where they look at new products and give their recommendations. He suggested that she talk with the Building and Safety Department. VI. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-215 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY BAZIK, 45-751 Edgehill Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of house color change. LOCATION: 45-751 Edgehill Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. He stated that the applicant painted his house without obtaining planning's approval. Numerous neighbors have called in and complained regarding the colors that the applicant selected. Code Enforcement went out and cited the applicant and requested the applicant receive planning's approval. The applicant painted the house a peach color with a charcoal trim, and painted the garage and front doors yellow. Other homes in the surrounding area consist of desert colors and do not have any of these colors selected by the applicant. Mr. Swartz indicated that the applicant was not in attendance. The Commission agreed to wait a few minutes for the applicant. G:1PIann�ngUanine Judy\Word FiiesViRC Minutes�200B1AR080527.min.doc Page 2 of 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 27, 2008 Commissioner Gregory asked that the ordinance be read so they can be clear on the rule. Mr. Stendell cited the General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance 1015A - 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications; "The colors of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence or other improvements to real property that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community of Development or Architectural Review Commission upon appeal. This shall be a no fee process. For the purposes of this section "significantly changed" means a change in hue, shade or intensity of color." Mr. Greg Kallmann, neighbor, stated that the builder of the fourteen homes told him the care they took in selecting the colors for these homes. They put pallets up against the mountains, stood back and selected colors that blended in. He expressed that this home jumps out and doesn't blend in. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the original color was for this house and was in disrepair. Mr. Shank answered that it was an off creamy white and the house was only six years old so it was not in disrepair. Mr. Stendell indicated that the applicant was still not present and thought the item should be continued. Commissioner Gregory felt that it shouldn't be continued because the neighbors were present and should be heard. He asked Mr. Swartz if the applicant was fully aware of the meeting and the correct time. Mr. Swartz answered that the applicant was notified of the date and time. Ms. Aylaian stated that the Architectural Commission (ARC) could take action in the absent of an applicant. This action was an appeal of her decision and if the applicant is not happy with the decision of the ARC he can appeal. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the Commission could hear from the neighbors. Mr. Dave Shank, neighbor mentioned that he loves Palm Desert and his neighborhood and was aware of Palm Desert's policy to have consistency of colors within a neighborhood. However he feels that the color of this house is not consistent with the neighborhood and is an abomination. Mr. Kallmar�n stated that he also loves Palm Desert and his neighborhood, but they were very surprised to see this color. He stated again the vision of the builder that everything blends into the mountains, even the landscaping. So it was a big surprise for them to see this color and indicated that there is also an issue with the color on the back and sides of the house; not only the front as G1PlannmgUarnne Judy\Word FdesWRC Minutes�2008WROB0527.min.tice Page 3 of 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 27, 2008 shown on the photo. He stated that the yellow color on the sides is more of a fluorescent color; which appears to be a different color than the front. He expressed that he and the neighbors have taken several days to see if the color would grow on them or something that they can live with, but it is not growing on them. He feels that he would not be able to sell his home with a home in the neighborhood with that color. He has always had a lot of respect for the vision of Palm Desert and knew that there were rules of what you can and cannot do and knew there was a review process. He also mentioned that people from other neighborhoods like Vista Paseo have even complained about the color. Mr. Swartz stated that he had received numerous complaints from Vista Paseo. Commissioner DeLuna stated that it is clearly not consistent with the neighborhood or the plan for Palm Desert with the desert feeling and felt that it was out of character. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this made him see the value of having review boards because things happen in neighborhoods. People have the best intentions but they end up playing designer and do some pretty odd things. You can not conform and do it well, but that is hard to do, so it is easier to conform. Commissioner Vuksic expressed that the residents of the neighborhood have a reasonable expectation that their investment be protected. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Commission was dealing with the statuary. Mr. Stendell stated that that was a separate issue. Mr. Kallmann stated that nude statues have been added and felt that this statue was in an inappropriate area. Mr. Swartz stated that Code Enforcement went out there today and stated again that it was a separate issue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to deny the applicant's current color scheme subject to the applicant submitting a new color scheme consistent with the neighborhood. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None G�PlanningUanine Judy\Word F�IesV+RC Minutes�2008�AR080527.min.doc Page 4 of 5 ` .. '.��..,I,�� CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALtFORNl�1►; y `,"t-��;;��, �S ��,-ticE p : �:i f�F :,tk �. C:1 i��-�-�. , .,, . � � APPLICATION TO APPEAI�� r��Y �g �s� �t:_j � DECISION OF THE �"j� �- (Name of Determining Body) Case No. � �/S G �7�"�� Date of Decision: �J � ��7" 0� Name of Appellant � �(�. �f`v �12 r. lC Phone �� Z.l (� ` j � � Address �i /� `i� �Des�/� Description of Application or Matter Consider.ed: �Q(,L�'� �-��(� r' -- Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): r � .. ^ � ` ` � � l 5' v � — w � n� � v� ,. . (Sign of pe{lant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY , Date Appeal Filed: J�- ,�C/ • �� Fee Received: � �� Treasurer's Receipt No. �7��5� Received by: � �/'�/Z�� z —f�V� Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H:4klassen\WPdata\WPDOCS�FORMS�appl to appeal.wpd Rev 629/02 ,_�/_. :%+�I'.• � ��/ � �-�� o n � � �,��;� C��t��J oo �� _- �.��c�n� LD�G��c�c� �q a ,� �t ;:�, �S' 73-510 FRED WARING DR. • PALM DESERT, CA 92260 4� � � � �� DATE � �1•�� TREASURER'S RECEIPT AMOUNT�c�I�. — RECEIVED FROM: �,Cl�L� ��/�/"/ � �P�Z/ FOR:��/7 I � C/7�.11/Yt��/2�1��i�G�/��v (,./I�� (��e �o rr��s c ��s ls-a�. c�8� Project ' • ' • Number: FUND DEPT DIV ELEM/OBJ � • � Q(��Q ,�/- I�b0 ' � �'�v i � RECEIVED FOR THE CITY TREASURER � � � , - � B %� �'� � �a� - � � I FIN NC DEPARTMENT USE O Y i i i i � i i i i i i 1 CHECKS ACCFPTED SUR,IECT TO BANK CIEARANCF GARY MICHAEL BAZIK 90"�� 15 0 9 45751 EDQEHILL DR. PALM DESERT,CA 9P26o-3413 DATE "" � ^ PAY TO THE . ,(� � „) � � ` �O ORDER OF � Y /V� e.�.rF.�... �� LLARS el �m MI Washiegton Mutual �� "►�� M-706�111 1-BOo-7e67000 PaYn 922E0 2t nw aMoev Swrw NOTES ��&C/1!v- /Yl�ES'G DF•3!S "p �,,T� CITY OF PALN� CITy CLERK � � ARCHITECTURAL REVII AGENDf-. MAY 27, 2008 12:30 P.M. — COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Please set your pagers and cell phones to silent mode. I. CALL TO ORDER _ fl. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 13, 2008 to be approved at the next meeting. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address the Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Commission. 2. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non- hearing agenda items. It should be noted that at Commission discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the agenda as the items is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Commission. {V. CASES: A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-215 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: GARY BAZIK, 45-751 Edgehill Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of house color change. LOCATION: 45-751 Edgehill Drive ZONE: R-1 ��,� •_. •i r . y � ORDINANCE NO. 1015A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALtFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTtON 25.56.510 TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL FOR ANY SfGNIFtCANT CHANGE OF AN APPROVED COLOR OR TEXTURE ON AN EX{STING BUILD4NG, STRUCTURE, SIGN, WALL, FENCE, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO REAL PROPERTY. CASE NO. ZOA 02-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11 th day of December, 2003, hold a duiy noticed public hearing to consider amending the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications; and WHEREAS, the Ptanning Commission, by its Resotution No. 2124, has recommended approval of the proposed amendment which is significantly similar to the amendment before the City Council; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the Calitornia Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is considered a Class 5 Categoricat Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon heari�g and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Counci( did find the following facts and reasons to justify appraval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 1 . That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan ancf affected specific plans. 3. That the Zaning Urdinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety, �nd genPral welfare than the currPnt regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED hy the City Council of the City of Palm Deser-t, as f�llows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings � of the City Council in this case. r ' � ORDINANCE NO. 1015A 2. That the City Council app►oves a zoning ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhibit� "A" to amend Municipal Code Sections 25.56 adding Section 25.56.510, Exterior Modifications. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in th� City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a �egular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this sch day of January , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL - NOES: NONE - ABSENT: CRITES ABSTAIN: NONE ��Q. Robert A. Spiegel MayOC ATTEST: , RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 t � ORDINANCE NO. 1015A , EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 25.56 GENERAL PROVISIONS 25.56.510 Exterior Modifications The colors of an existing huilding, structure, sign, wall, fence or other improvements to real p�operty that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission upon appeal. This shall be a no fee process. For the purposes of this section "significantty changed" means a change in hue, shade or intensity of color. 3 zo �'� �� -�o D v 0 D � � D v � D � � � � w 1 � T � O N � O p J O �� 7{y � � 3 A � T � � ('� C \ " � N ] U1 W ft��.".�'�. Y, � �,. �....<.�:. I`�,. � �� w � O � � o �\ v, o_ca � 'P �LJ � o �.c�o � � � � cn � � � w � � � n !/—'� � V � 0 _ 1� V� m David M. Shank 45731 Edgehill Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 June 24, 2008 City of Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor and Council Members, On May 27, 2008, I attended a meeting of the Architectural Review Commission for the City of Palm Desert. The purpose of my attendance at the meeting was to discuss the new paint colors at the home next to ours, at 45-751 Edgehill Drive. This topic was on the agenda due to complaints by neighbors and the fact that the owner did not get a permit for the painting, or approval by the Architectural Review Commission for the choice of colors. During the meeting the Commission agreed with my wife and me, as well as other neighbors, that the paint colors are not consistent with the other homes in the area, or with the mountain landscape that we are so proud of in Palm Desert. Myself and the neighbor on the other side of the subject home, Greg Kallmann, were both at the meeting, however, the home owner, Gary Bazik, did not seem to care enough to attend. It is our sincere hope, that you will take a few minutes to drive by this home, since photos do not seem to show how out-of-synch this color scheme is to the area. It is especially important that you see the back side of the home, where Mr. Bazik has used two of the colors across the back of the home, thus affecting the view of hikers as they descend the beautiful mountain trails of Palm Desert. The color scheme used by Mr. Bazik is such that the property values on Edgehill, and perhaps other areas of Palm Desert will be affected negatively. Please uphold the Architectural Review Commission's ruling to require Mr. Bazik to repaint his home with approved colors. Please contact me with any questions, at 837-0046. Regards, -�-� .--� � ,+:;"`{ ._� �--- " ,,� ._,:;`- :� ��,��; David M. Shank � �'�-� ' _,,,�.... �, ��s . ��,-�,� � :_`��.; ,. �-;� CJ') ;�►C7 t7'� � Klassen, Rachelle From: Michelson, Wilma Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:58 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: Letter for council meeting on June 26th Attachments: Letter City of PD.doc Importance: High From: Dave Shank [mailto:dshank@dc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:41 PM To: CityhallMail Subject: Fw: Letter for council meeting on June 26th Importance: High -----Original Message ----- From: Dave Shank To: cityhall .ci.palmdesert.ca.us Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:38 PM Subject: Letter for council meeting on June 26th Wilma, Per our discussion last week, please make sure the Mayor and each council member receives a copy of the attached letter. Should you not be abel to open the letter, please call me at 837-0046, and I will be glad to drop off a copy for you. Regards, Dave Shank 1 Klassen, Rachelle From: Gates, Mary Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:12 AM To: Michelson, Wilma Cc: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: Agenda Item for Today's City Council Meeting Hi, Wilma Item B under New Business on today's City Council Agenda is an appeat of a decision of the Architectural Review Commission to deny a request for color change to an existing single-family residential house located at 45-751 Edgehill Drive. We just received a call from Ms. Marsha Wright, who owns property on Edgehill Drive, two lots north of the house in question. She is not able to attend the Council meeting today, as she is in Oregon, but she wanted to express her concern and urge the City Council to uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Commission. She said the owner did not get a permit to paint the house, and she feels allowing the house to stay the existing color will only ruin property values. Her telephone number, in case you need to contact her, is (541) 510-1825. 4i , . . - � ��"�� k i^. . a ... . e . . g� . � . .. .... . +.; .. . . , ,. � r� � ��' . ;� �, r-- '��": ��.�:;„i... �3 C:':�r�, � �y .x y m <��.�a�-';�.,ti„ � � �r:�r�;LL,. �-i: .• i'�,..... , � �� 1