The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARC Appeal - Case MISC 13-31, David Narz Applicant/Appellant CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION DENYtNG A CARPORT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD MEASURED 20 FEET FROM BACK OF CURB LOCATED AT 43-120 TEXAS AVENUE SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: David Narz 77372 Evening Star Trail Indian Wells, CA 92210 CASE NO: Misc 13-32 DATE: May 23, 2013 CONTENTS: 1. Legal Notice 2. Architectural Review Commission Minutes dated March 26, 2013 3. Architectural Review Commission Minutes dated March 12, 2013 4. Architectural Review Commission Minutes dated February 26, 2013 5. Architectural Review Commission Minutes dated February 12, 2013 6. Plans and Photo Exhibits Recommendation By Minute Motion: Approve staff's recommendation to allow a single carport within the front yard measured 20 feet from back of curb per Section 25.16.090, C of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, subject to the carport being constructed per the plans considered for approval. Architectural Review Commission Action The project was reviewed and discussed at four different Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meetings. Staff presented the project at the February 12, 2013 meeting. The Commission granted conceptual approval on an 8-0 vote subject to the applicant submitting construction drawings with the design detailed. At the February 26, 2013 meeting, the Commission reviewed the construction plans and requested changes to the carport design due to concerns with the design not being compatible with the applicant's home. At the March 12, 2013 meeting, the applicant submitted photos of other carports within the neighborhood and stated that he felt the proposed carport was in keeping with the neighborhood. The project was continued to allow the Commissioners to conduct an on-site Staff Report Case No. Misc 13-32 Narz Carport Page 2 of 5 May 23, 2013 visit to the applicant's home. At the March 26, 2013, meeting, the Commissioners discussed their on-site visits to the home. Some Commissioners believed that no design changes should be required since the ARC conceptually approved the original design. Other Commissioners believed that the plans were conceptually approved subject to final review of the design details, and that the requested design changes would make the carport more compatible with the home and would enhance the neighborhood. The applicant did not want to make the design changes, reporting that he already had the carport structurally engineered based on the conceptual design approval. The Commission made two different motions with each one failing. After a long discussion the Commission ultimately denied the project on a 6-3-0-0 vote with Commissioner's Gregory, Levin, and McAuliffe voting No. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would represent a compromise solution to a problematic situation. It would overturn the Architectural Review Commission's action denying a carport located 20 feet from back of curb. The applicant proposes to convert the existing single carport into living space, which would trigger the requirement to add a covered parking space. The applicant cannot meet the 20-foot required front yard setback. Section 25.16.090 of the Zoning Code allows carports in older areas to be measured 20 feet from back of curb, and not from property line. The design of such carports must be approved by the ARC. This item was heard and discussed at four ARC meetings. The applicant received conceptual approval at the first meeting for design and setback location. However, when the applicant submitted the construction drawings, the Commission required additional design changes. At the March 26, 2013, meeting, the Commission could not reach agreement regarding design, and ultimately denied the project. Backqround A. Property Description: The project site is located within Palm Desert Country Club north of Fred Waring Drive, west of Warner Trail, and south of Hovley Lane East. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: The property is zoned Residential Single Family (R-1, 9,000), and the General Plan designation is Low Density Residential (R-L). C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: R-1, 9,000 - Residential Single Family/ Single Family Home South: R-1, 9,000 - Residential Single Family/ Single Family Home East: R-1, 9,000 - Residential Single Family/ Single Family Home West: R-1, 9,000 - Residential Single Family/ Single Family Home G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\David Narz\CC appeal Narz Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case No. Misc 13-32 Narz Carport Page 3 of 5 May 23, 2013 Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single carport into living space, and provide a new 192-square-foot single carport. The carport is 16' x 12' with a 2' overhang, attached to the main house off the second bedroom. The carport is designed as a trellis painted to match the existing house. The carport would be constructed with 6' x 6' posts. The applicant is proposing to convert all existing posts to 6' x 6' posts to match the carport design. The carport would be located 20 feet from back of curb. Analvsis The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single-carport into living space. Palm Desert Municipal Code (P.D.M.C.) Chapter 25.58 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 25.58.300 requires covered parking. Therefore, the applicant needs to provide a covered parking space in return. . The proposed single-carport does not meet the 20-foot front yard setback from property line. The applicant's property line is located 12 feet from back of curb. Chapter 25.16 Single-Family Residential District Section 25.16.090, C of the P.D.M.0 states: "In order to encourage rehabilitation of older dwelling units and to provide shaded parking for vehicles, the Architectural Review Commission may approve well designed carport structures with a minimum setback of 20 feet, to be measured from the curb face to the front edge of the carport structure. In approving such a setback, the Architectural Review Commission shall send a notice to property owners within 300' of the property and make a determination that a reduced setback will not have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood." On February 12, 2013, the applicant went before the ARC for the proposed carport. Staff presented the project, and stated that the carport is in front of the ARC for conceptual design approval only. The applicant did not want to submit plans with the design details until his location and concept were approved. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it is a simple house and the carport design will come down to the details. He stated that the Commission needs to know how things are connected, and to make sure all metal hardware are concealed and not exposed. The ARC granted conceptual approval on an 8-0 vote, subject to the applicant submitting final working drawings. At the February 26, 2013 meeting, the applicant submitted the structural working drawings. The applicant was unable to attend the ARC meeting for personal reasons. Staff presented the working drawings. The Commission had several concerns with the design details for the carport. They believed the carport was not in keeping with the home's design. They felt the design of the carport being higher than the roof line looked out of place. They were also concerned with some of the metal hardware being exposed. Staff stated that since the applicant was unable to attend the meeting, staff should inform the applicant of the concerns. The Commission continued the item subject to: • Wrapping the carport fascia to tie into the existing fascia • Not having exposed hardware G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\David Narz\CC appeal Narz Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case No. Misc 13-32 Narz Carport Page 4 of 5 May 23, 2013 • Integration of a beam into the structure for better support At the March 12, 2013 meeting, the applicant discussed the concerns. The applicant stated that by dropping the ledger down he would have to remove stucco, and re-engineer the carport. Also, by lowering the carport to 6'-7" the new beam would be at 5'-7", which turns it into a patio cover. The applicant presented 10 photos of other carports in the neighborhood, which he believes were similar to his. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he walked the neighborhood and wanted to give the carport a fair look. He was not convinced that the carport was in keeping with the neighborhood. He believed the carport should align with the existing fascia of the applicant's home. He also stated that the bottom of the carport roof should be fully enclosed and stuccoed to match the existing porch covers on the home. The propose carport has open beam structures that he believed was not compatible with the home. Commissioner Gregory stated that the applicant clearly feels strongly about the design, and the Commission previously approved the design conceptually. The applicant stated that it does conform to the neighborhood and home. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the Commissioners visit the applicant's home. The item was continued on a 9-0 vote allowing the Commission to visit the site. At the March 26, 2013 meeting, the applicant presented a new design that showed 2' x 8' lumber around the post to conceal the hardware. After visiting the site and reviewing the new design some Commissioners felt comfortable with what was being proposed. They believed that the added lumber was a good idea. Some of the Commissioners believed that the ARC lead the applicant down the wrong path, and unfortunately the Commission made a mistake. Other Commissioners believed that the current design is not in keeping with the neighborhood and home. They felt that the carport does not connect properly to the home. Other homes with similar designed carports where the fascia is higher were done creatively. The Commissioners wanted the carport to match the porch cover which has stucco on the underside. The Commission made two motions. The first was to add cladding around the columns to hide the hardware. The second was the same, with the addition of adding stucco underneath the carport. Both motions failed on 3-6 votes. The Commissioners continued to discuss the design of the carport. The Commissioners could not reach an agreement and ultimately denied the project on a 6-3-0-0 vote, with Commissioner's Gregory, Levin, and McAuliffe voting NO. The applicant has revised the plans to include new 6' x 6' posts that are clad to conceal the hardware. Staff recommended approval of the carport design at the February 12, 2013, ARC meeting. The ARC also granted conceptual approval of the carport located above the existing fascia with exposed beams. Based on the conceptual approval, the applicant had the carport structurally engineered. Both staff and most of the ARC Commissioners believed that the carport would be better designed with stucco underneath the carport to match the existing porch. However, staff believes that the City would be doing a disservice to the applicant by requiring him to re-engineer the structural plans after receiving conceptual approval. G:\Planning\Kevin Swsrtz\Word\David Narz\CC appeal Narz Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case No. Misc 13-32 Narz Carport Page 5 of 5 May 23, 2013 There are other carports within the neighborhood that are constructed above the existing fascias with exposed beams. Today, the applicant has revised the plans to include new 6' x 6' posts that are clad to conceal the hardware. The carport maintains exposed beams. The design is not optimal, but it represents a reasonable outcome to a problematic situation. Environmental Review According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the environment. In this case, the proposed project is a Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (15303) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary Submitted By: C1T1'�� . APPROVED D�t;�� //��_ RECEIVED p�R Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner �DA - �3 AYES � NOESs Department Head: ABSENh �---'� STAINs r �� —� RIFIED B'Y�t .-' �-.-� Ortginal oa File t�vitM y�� auri Aylaian, Director of Community Development �pro al: � Jo . Wohlmuth, City Manager G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�David Narz\CG appeal Narz Staff Report.doc 4� �==, CI � Y �l � � �� 11 � � � � �� ,'+ �.�� i 73-5io Fkeo W,�kiNc DKive � Pn�M Desear,Cn��r'oRNin yzz6o—z578 � rEu 760 346-06�� rns:76o }4i-7o98 infu<Ppalm-desercorg ti� CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 13-32 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission action denying a carport within the front yard measured 20 feet from back of curb located at 43- 120 Texas Avenue. � ' H saiit �. :=�. � �µ ��_ ,x �:', -,..:. �`.� t� PN 637211Q�L �aeC � i'pRN � - A'` . Y � ^/ �#,�� t.NouS��0'f(V ��"�^.�� M1� . . C� �� '�k 770d4d '�, r� �,/ . '�t f �� }'` „ � � N:6.. .H� cllh�iu ��°�t APN 6y7}T2% `4, . / Ff+K�a � ; 1. . ♦a ��_ Atr s17zP2 � �aistx.dl qp � n H i ea Ha� � y i^ , : � �� , .� � "/� � z ' ' PN�6� t 9�T�J >. aV�- �:PPN. �� i ��61T2��> v5.. w ��,�� sx. . ! � ✓� ' '� . ��`�` . � e'..� �� l � � . �/ � �. f.. �� 7T4 �£ � '�i�+� APN:6 .'a�x yHau a,�_. ,f/ . �� t', _ �.. �A h��.�� '�� . �'!^ k 'k r� . 4.�, � � � � ai- '� r �'� o v �. > , w ,a 1 ��. � .. , �� ,� , �, � ra, + • ;✓, p�,. '�,+'"�� s � - ,�„ 4 �air�.M*ta �, �PN 6 :2}0 . . er` d3: :��'� ,�.'e :83T(�JO �. � ��,v� aiset.'�l APtk Olu HaistS 5.., � � , ��' ,,� .. l�, 3 M�1 A 5 .�'� . �r '.. ,. e „ "� '� �:�APIt E572" � � �, � �-.. .. ,. ,� H ,n4,a.. � . . .. Y... ou.ssx�312k��. M :�. I •J 1:873 �, xota� . � . t�/: i� -- __. � \ l ___— — —._ - SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friclay. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public�hearing. � PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk May 12, 2013 Palm Desert City Council RECEII�ED � C1TY CLERK'S (}FFfCE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CAUFORN�'�E'�N o��T �A �� APPLICATION TO APPEAL M�R 28 AM io� 33 � � DECISION OF THE Architectural Review Commission (Name of Determining Body) Case No. 13-32 Date of Decision: 3/26/13 Name of Appellant David Narz Phone 760-578-1199 Address 77-372 Evening Star Circle Indian Wells, CA 92210 Description of Applicafion or Matter Considered: Consideration of a carport located in the front yard twenty (20)feet back of curb Reason for Appeal(affach additional sheets if necessary}. Had previously been approved conceptually in the first meeting on 2/12/13 so proceeded wit s�ruc ra engineering ase on�iaf ap�-, ne � - -- placed conditions requiring re-engineering o e previous y approve concep u y p , rs cause unwarran e expenses. i . . ., orks Public opinion (r�o responses o no i ica ions sen y anning ° issue permit, waiting for p anning o s amp` . � (Sign re o ppellant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY �� Date Appeal Filed: b3��Z�- �G��3 Fee Received: � ��1�• Treasurer's Receipt No. 5�7,�/� Received by: � C� S��")C�?QZ. Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Cterk COPY T � �_�" 1=�- t____.� H:Wclassen�WPdatalWPOpCS�FORMSIappl to appeal.wpd Rev 6129102 DA�E ` `�c�� -�� . C�o�� p�� Dc��c�� 5 ? 219 . ��-'�= 73-510 Fr�ED WARING DR. • PALM DESERT, CA 92260 ,- DATE �" � �.Q�� TREASURER'S RECEIPT AMOUNT ��l�. - RECEIVED FROM: I � J �C% � CZ/ - !�-� ��U C�� l� FOR: ��-�.. C�. �� Project • ' • Number: FUND DEPT DIV ELEM/OBJ � • � l�a �� y' �� _; �-� � � RECEIVED FOR THE CITY TREASURER , � � ' C� � , ; BY: � � i FINA CE DEPARTME USE NLY i � i i i i I i�1£ : �.f� � �.'. ,S/'t'$/iJ it� tiPf�E]t�L t)l#: 1:'�bt i � l �°�'r=�£��J i�/`�.b� � i. ,� uavRent �rib.0k� i i � i i I CHECKS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO BANK CLEAFANCE Klassen, Rachelle From: Klassen, Rachelle Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:41 AM To: Aylaian, Lauri; Bagato, Tony; Swartz, Kevin Subject: ARC Appeal - Narz-Case No. 13-32 Attachments: APPEAL-Narz-Case No. 13-32-Mar28-2013.pdf Importance: High Attached is a copy of the subject Appeal. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. RwcRa�6a D.KBaSSaN,MMC City Clerk, City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 (760) 346-0611, Ext. 304 Fax: (760) 340-0574 e-mail: rklassen@citvofpalmdesert.or� i , � ARCHITECTURAL RE4 ��V COMMISSION ;� MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Clark re-read the motion and recommended that the shape of the logos shall be uniform. Chairman Gregory want�d to make it clear that sign D matches more with Sign C. He ca��d for the motion. The vote carried 6-3, with Commissioners Col bini, Levin, and Van Vliet voting NO. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commissio as just letting them go with whatever size logo they choose. The ommission disagreed. Mr. Bagato said when they get e construction drawings they can compare it to the photo sim. looks completely off the applicant will have to bring it back to th ommission or staff will tell them to change it. ACTION: Commissioner L bell moved to approve subject to: 1) sign bases for signs C & D shall atch more of sign C; 2) Desert Springs Marketplace logo shall be inter y lit; 3) sign B approved as submitted subject to obtaining a Hold Har ss Agreement; and 4) shape of logos shall be uniform and approved , staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-3- 0-0 vote, with Commissioners Colombini, Levin, and Van Vliet voting NO. 3. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Circle, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a carport located in the front yard 20' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-120 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was continued from three previous meetings; February 12, February 26, and March 12. It was continued at the last meeting to allow the Commissioners to go out and view the applicant's house and neighboring carports. Chairman Gregory said after viewing the house and surrounding carports, he felt comfortable with what is being proposed. The house is in nice condition; small and modest as were most of the homes in the neighborhood. After looking at several new and existing enclosures, this proposal may not be appropriate in a more upscale community. However, it is apropos for this neighborhood. He asked the applicant that day if some work could be done on the posts and the G:\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word Files\t ARC\1 Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 6 of 17 . � ARCHITECTURAL RH �,W COMMISSION " � MINUTES March 26, 2013 applicant agreed to square up the side in a way that it didn't look quite so funky. MR. DAVID NARZ, applicant, presented a drawing that showed added lumber on the posts. He thought what Commissioner Vuksic had suggested at a previous meeting was to not to have the carport overhang match the overhang of the house rather than inset with the first truss line. Chairman Gregory thought that was a good idea. He realizes there are many things that could be done to make it nicer. On the other hand, he also recognized that a lot of the additional things would weigh more, would require larger size material, and would make this more of a herculean effort. For example, it could have been plastered on the soffits underneath or to use heavier gauge timber. He felt okay with the metal straps being painted. Commissioner Colombini felt the same. However, the applicant is showing the blocks on two sides of the column and he thought it should go all the way around the column in order to hide the hardware. MR. NARZ said the idea of the H pattern was to give it some three dimensional shape creating an 8 by look, but it is still recessed around. Commissioner Van Vliet said he wasn't bothered by the height. It looks odd, but almost all of them in the neighborhood look odd. He felt that what was being proposed distracts from the house. He would like to see it lower coming in more towards the roof line. This never would have been built this way in the beginning and it looks like an add-on. MR. NARZ said having walked around the house with Chairman Gregory and Commissioner Vuksic he pointed out that the original construction did stack on top of the wall and the patio cover actually comes in higher and sits on the outrigger. Chairman Gregory felt the ones that aligned with the fascia were too low. On the ones that matched the fascias, by the time it came out toward the street, it didn't look as pleasing as the ones that were up a little bit. Commissioner Clark pointed out that this is not a high-end community; it's a working class community. However, he did notice that the neighborhood has put value into their homes. So that is something this Commission needs to be concerned about because we don't want to do anything that would detract from that sense of value that exists in that community. G:1PlanninglJanineJudylWord FilesN ARC\1Minutes�2013\130326min.docx Page 7 of 17 � ARCHITECTURAL RE� ��U COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 The Commission and staff discussed the setback issues. Staff indicated that the required setback was 20' from the property line and the property line is 12' back from curb. The Commission wanted to know what the encroachment was. Mr. Bagato said there is no encroachment allowed. Under the code, the applicant has to be 32' from the curb to meet anything that staff can approve over the counter. This is what staff approved, but the applicant is taking a legal conforming situation and wants to add on to the house and bring in a carport that requires an exception based on architectural merit. The required setback is 20' from the property line and the property line is 12' back. Commissioner Clark asked how many feet the applicant is asking for an encroachment into the front setback. Mr. Bagato said the applicant has a full 20' with 18' to the posts. So this would be 18' plus a 2' overhang to give him a 20' carport. The Commission discussed the 12' setback. Mr. Bagato said most public streets are about 12'. In private communities, like Bighorn, it can be right up to the street. Chairman Gregory said this was developed obviously many years ago pursuant to requirements of the County at the time. He asked staff if these requirements were different than current City of Palm Desert requirements if a new subdivision was built. Mr. Bagato said not for a front setback. These are smaller lots and under planned community developments with smaller �ots staff has allowed 15' setbacks; 3,500 sq. foot lots. This lot is 6,500 sq feet so we're a little above that. It's in the middle area and staff is looking at tweaking side setbacks for Palm Desert County Club because the old County requirement allows 5' and 5'. The 20' requirement is pretty standard City wide. Commissioner Levin said he walked this neighborhood and it has a very eclectic collection of overhangs, some of which are on the original houses. Some are enclosed, some have garage doors, one house has a massive stucco structure which is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He didn't have an issue with the carport going back to sit on the bearing wall and be up over the top of the roof. There are a number out there that are like that. As far as stucco underneath, there are a number of carports up and down the street with exposed beams. G:IPlanning\Janine JudylWord Files\1 ARC11Minutes12 01 311 3 03 2 6min.docx Page 8 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL R�' �W COMMISSION .: � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner McAuliffe drove by and said the house is very clean and has a nice presentation. However he had some concerns. As he looked at the detailing and the photographs provided, there are a lot of examples of the roof canopy. A lot of the roof canopies are fairly thin; 2 x 4, 2 x 6. This is a four frame; using 2 x 10s and thaYs a pretty substantial structure. It doesn't mean that the other beams aren't of that same dimension, but just the appearance and profile it has at its eave iYs stepping back up to something a little more delicate; which visually helps to lighten it. He discussed the intersection of the roof and the electrical mast head. He pointed out that this would be a messy detail because it's going to land right where that intersection is. He did like the addition of cladding to the columns and thought that was a move in the right direction. He suggested cladding between the 2 x 6s with a 1 by so all nails will be completely concealed. He would be concerned if the applicant just added the 2 x 8s to the front and back since this only conceals the top portion. Then it's the side straps that tend to be messy because they have twice as many nails. If there's one thing that the applicant's going to leave exposed, he'd rather see that and hide the sides. Commissioner Mclntosh thought the applicant was frustrated because initially he got conceptual approval on this carport. From an architecYs prospective, when we go into detailing, we consider that as design development and through detailing the design can kind of evolve and make itself work better as a whole. Unfortunately, he feels this is where a lot of the Commissioners are getting hung up. The detailing didn't help develop the design any and help it relate together. There are a lot of creative solutions on the street and what is proposed on the plans is very minimal and sort of tacked on. He's hoping to see something that will enhance the neighborhood versus something that will give it a minimal approach. Since the house currently complies, the applicant is not being forced to do this. The Commission agrees that the house is a clean design. So what can the applicant do to maintain that instead of filling in the existing compliant carport and then putting on something that is not really going to keep it looking clean. MR. NARZ said as a real estate broker, concrete contractor, and a general contractor, as well as working out here since 1980; he would not do this unless he thought it was something creative. He's not trying to make the property less attractive. If he would have known this would have taken two months, he would have built a side-loading carport and it probabty would not have had to come before this committee. He's just trying to do something as simple as possible. The whole idea of adding a carport was a burden put on by the city when it annexed; not by the HOA that has already approved this, not by Public Works that has already approved this, and not by the G:\PlanninglJanineJudylWord Files\1 ARC11Minutes\2013N30326min.docx Page 9 of 17 • ARCHITECTURAL RE4 ,�11 COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Building Department that has already looked at the drawings and approved it and is just waiting for the Commission's approval. He is doing what he has to do to make it conform. Commissioner Mclntosh appreciated all those issues. The concerns of this Commission are the aesthetics and looking out for the community as a whole. Through design development you get a concept, you work it out, and find the road blocks. He asked staff if a side entry would be the best solution. Mr. Bagato said the applicant wouldn't have enough room for a side entry because the carport would have to be 16' from the property line and the carport has to be between 10' to 12' wide. The Commission discussed the code requirement of having two covered spaces. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that the City has always required covered spaces. Technically, if staff wantcd to be onerous the applicant would need a two-car carport, but staff hasn't been onerous. This has always been a requirement and staff did inform the applicant two and a half months ago that this was an exception and it would have to be presented to this Commission. Typically it needs to match the house to the best� extent possible. It is part of the process of converting a carport. Commissioner Clark said his observation on the County issue is that the property was probably built around 1970 and remained in the County jurisdiction for about 25 years more or less, and now we're almost 20 years into the City jurisdiction. So let's apply City standards and not worry too much about what may or may not have been allowed in the County. MR. NARZ said plans, as you know, are two dimensional and as a builder we all know that when we start erecting things stuff comes into play that we didn't notice. The problem with the front elevation of this is you are seeing the carport aligned with the fascia. He said it wasn't like he was trying to do anything new or old, he was doing what was on the plan and went with that and just tried to build it the same as how the back looked. Commissioner Vuksic said he didn't think the intent was to have everything line up, because the applicant is right, it might do that on two dimensional paper in elevation, but it doesn't do that in reality. The intent is to have everything connect properly. Personally he doesn't think the carports that are out there are too low. He believes G:\P�anningUanine Judy\Word Filesll ARCN Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 10 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL R� �W COMMISSION �, �� MINUTES March 26, 2013 they are generally low slung houses and these low slung carports look appropriate with them. He saw tons of carports where they were coming off the existing fascia lines and dying into the existing fascia lines. He would be hard pressed to find one that is raised up that is similar to the one being proposed. There are other ones that are raised up but they were very different. There were several different designs out there. He thinks they were tacked on, but they were tacked on creatively. What he struggles with is that the Commission gave a conceptual approval and we should have thought more carefully about it at that time; what that meant and what the Commission was indicating to the applicant. He stated that he listened to the recording of the minutes to make sure he understood it and to be as fair as he could be. One thing he heard on the tape was that the applicant was directed by staff to match existing and twice the applicant said he was just matching the existing. The applicant refers to the patio cover, but he doesn't see how the applicant can relate the carport to the patio cover in the back when you're looking at the street scene. He thought it was important for this to match the porch cover in some way to compliment it rather than to be a different animal from it. On the original drawing, what the Commission didn't see was the fact that the existing porch cover has hidden connectors and plaster below it. It is nice and clean and finished looking and what the applicant is proposing is a structure with exposed framing and exposed connectors. He feels comfortable asking that it be plastered below and that the connectors are hidden. WhaYs frustrating for him is that the Commission is looking at making an exception here and it seems to him that when looking at making an exception it's worth holding it to a reasonable standard even though it might cost a little more. Commissioner Colombini stated there are a number of plaster boards out there that are a lot lighter than the 3/4" stucco. Chairman Gregory suggested putting some type of stucco to cover the soffits. Commissioner Colombini suggested cladding the columns; all four sides of the hardware. Commissioner Vuksic said just because he's adding stucco it doesn't mean it has to get bulkier looking. It depends on how it's engineered. Commissioner Colombini again stated there are stucco boards you can get from 3/8" up to 1/2" or 3/4" and it weighs a lot less than the 3/4" stucco. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesN ARC\1 Minutes12013\130326min.docx Page 11 of 17 • ARCHITECTURAL RE4 `�,U COMMISSION � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Chairman Gregory made a motion to approve the design subject to cladding the columns to hide all hardware. Commissioner Levin made the second. Chairman Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the drawing they were looking at was the original drawing that received conceptual approval. Mr. Swartz said it was the original drawing. He then informed the Commission that he spoke with the City Attorney who said that just because it was conceptually approved and not a final the Commission could ask for revisions or a new design. That was part of the risk the applicant took by not bringing in the design details. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that once we lead an applicant down that path, unfortunately the Commission is locked into it even though they think this is a mistake at this time. Chairman Gregory said he didn't make it a part of his motion, but he is extremely uncomfortable about that as well. If the Commission leads someone down a path and they follow along with the Commission's guidance, it is not fair to rescind it. Commissioner Vuksic said there's a difference between what we are allowed to do and what is fair. Commissioner Clark said if this was a one or two foot setback encroachment, he would say this was no big deal. However, it is substantially more and this will be visible up and down the street. At the time it was originally approved, he should have said more. He is impressed with the neighborhood and the investment in the neighborhood has been substantial. He doesn't see this as designed even as proposed for hiding the hardware as comporting with the desirability of the improvement in the neighborhood. He didn't think he could support it. Chairman Gregory suggested they take the vote and if the motion fails, then the applicant can move on to Plan B, if there is one. Commissioner Vuksic wanted to clarify that the motion is for the cladding on the posts and hiding all hardware, but nothing about plaster board or hidden connectors. Chairman Gregory also indicated that it be painted as to a previous agreement on the part of the applicant. Commissioner Levin agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chairman Gregory called for a vote. Motion failed 3-6. G:\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word FilesN ARC\1 Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL RE �W COMMISSION MINUTES �� March 26 2013 , MR. NARZ said he appreciated their time and effort and informed the Commission that he will now turn this into a garage. Mr. Narz left the conference room. The Commission and staff discussed the applicant withdrawing his proposal. Mr. Bagato asked Mr. Swartz to invite Mr. Narz back to the conference room so a final determination could be made to move this along. Mr. Bagato asked Mr. Narz if he was o�cially withdrawing his request or did he want the Commission to make a decision on the current plans so that if it is denied, the applicant could appeal to City Council. MR. NARZ said he would have to hear what the Commission is proposing because it sounds like he has to come to the City for architectural design. Mr. Bagato informed the applicant that the motion is to hide the hardware. MR. NARZ said hiding the hardware with some lumber is easy enough but asking him to hide the hardware by changing the engineering and to stucco the soffits would not be affordable and he will not re-engineer the drawings. Chairman Gregory asked Commissioner Colombini about the stucco material he referred to earlier. Commissioner Colombini said it was called stucco board and it already has stucco finish on it and you coat it with a heavy paint coat. At this point, there were too many people talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. The Commission and MR. NARZ discussed the fascia hiding the stucco and the joist size. It was suggested matching the existing porch cover. Commissioner Vuksic told the applicant that he would want to keep it thinner. The applicant would need to look at what happens if he spaced the joists closer together. Chairman Gregory made a motion to approve the current design and to apply some type of stucco material so all frame work is hidden and the columns will be clad to hide the hardware. G:1Planning\JanineJudy\Word Filesll ARC11Minutes\2 01 311 30 3 2 6min.docx Page 13 of 17 • ARCHITECTURAL RE4 �V COMMISSION `� MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Vuksic suggested that keeping it thin is important and the motion needs to state that if there's added weight to be considered, that the engineering be reviewed. Chairman Gregory amended his motion to include those comments. Commissioner Colombini made the second. The motion failed 3-6. Chairman Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Levin said the Commission didn't like doing nothing and now doesn't like something. Commissioner Van Vliet said he was never bothered by the stucco underneath so that was a non issue for him. He was bothered by the height coming in and closeness to the street. Commissioner Clark asked what the applicant would like to propose. MR. NARZ said cladding the posts. Commissioner Clark asked if the applicant had anything else to add to the application. MR. NARZ said he was prepared to build the carport as designed. Commissioner Clark recommended a motion to deny. Commissioner Van Vliet made the second. Chairman Gregory asked for comments. Commissioner Levin didn't understand and said as you go up and down the street there is a lot of exposed beams. He asked Commissioner Vuksic what the objection was. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't see it applied in the same way as proposed in this project. In one of the photos, number 10, the house has a contemporary flair to it. There's some design even to the exposed beams that are soldiered below there. He likes the way it works as a composition for the whole house. Other exposed beams, as you can see in the other photos, are on some pretty wild carport structures that have a lot of design and care that went into them. Three or four houses to the north of the applicant's he saw a carport with exposed framing and exposed hardware and iYs certainly not something you want to match because it looked awful. That is why he doesn't see it as being appropriate for this house. He doesn't think that this proposal measures up to the standard of care and design of the other houses. G:\PlanninglJanine Judy\Word Files\1 ARC\1 Minutes\2013\130326min.docx Page 14 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL R� �W COMMISSION � � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Commissioner Levin asked if ali the houses were stuccoed under the shade portion that comes out over the existing house. Commissioner Vuksic said a vast majority of carports that he looked at were coming off the existing eave and plastered below. Then there were exceptions that went to another level that was an attempt to do something that they perceived to be creative at considerable expense. MR. NARZ said anything that was an original carport was stuccoed. What you had to find was a person who turned the carport into a living space and then created a shade structure for their cars. He said in about 99.9% of those conditions the lumber was exposed. If you went to every house that didn't have anything added, all the original carports are stuccoed. That's why enclosing a carport is so easy. There is nothing structural about it, you just put walls on both sides of the carport and you then have an enclosed bedroom or an enclosed garage. There are a lot of houses that have their carports enclosed that have shade structures that do not meet the criteria of the city; they aren't 12' x 20'. Commissioner Clark said this speaks again to his motion to deny. The level of investment in this neighborhood by adjoining properties is significant and goes beyond a minimal investment. The Commission needs to take into account the fact that what we approve out there may survive for many decades. We need to make a decision to what is good for the long run. Commissioner Lambell said she is looking for architectural merit and something which has been given some thought to it. Chairman Gregory asked if the Commission was still in favor of the motion to deny. Mr. Bagato recommended a denial of the plans as presented. Commissioner Van Vliet said the applicant could then appeal to City Council. Mr. Bagato said he could appeal to City Council or come in with plans for the garage. Chairman Gregory asked the applicant if he would be interested in coming up with a revised design if this was denied. MR. NARZ said if his option right now was to get his plans approved by making some changes to the bottom of the joists, he is all for that. G:1PlanningUanine Judy\Word Filesll ARC11Minutes12013\130326min.docx Page 15 of 17 I � ARCHITECTURAL RE� _�V COMMISSION ' � MINUTES March 26, 2013 Chairman Gregory said that motion was not approved. MR. NARZ said there are three architects on this board and obviously they have their ideas of what a carport should look like and they should get into designing carports that can be stamped over the counter. Why waste his time trying to find somebody that can draw something that he thinks conforms to the City if it's just going to be denied by people that have different ideas of what a carport should look like. Chairman Gregory said he had a point and if this were something that came up frequently, they probably may wish to have city standards that are easier to follow. Mr. Bagato said the problem is that the Commission wants it to match the house and every home is different. The general comments are consistent; we don't want exposed hardware and we want it to match the house. That is what we tell people when they come in to apply and that's what we told this applicant from day one when he came in asking for the exception. Commissioner Vuksic said they need to be more careful when they give conceptual approval to make sure of what is being indicated to the applicant. Chairman Gregory called for the vote to deny the proposal in its entirety. Motion carried 6-3. The Commission discussed carport structures and the standards of approval. It was suggested that staff, in the future, provide more clarity in regards to setbacks and a clear site plan. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to deny Case MISC 13-32 in its entirety. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet and carried by a 6-3-0-0, vote with Commissioners Gregory, Levin, and McAuliffe voting NO. Preliminary Plans: G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARCNMinutes\2 01 311 30 3 2 6min.docx Page 16 of 17 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE�. �l COMMISSION � MINUTES March 12, 2013 Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he would have some kind of a privacy wall on the side yard. Mr. COX said there will be a gate there. On one side there is a wall and gate and the other there was a wrought iron fence that went across. There is an existing wall that goes all the way around the house. At this point, several people were talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the house would basically have the same shape. MR. COX said everything will be the same except that he wanted to go with the higher ceilings. Commissioner Vuksic said this house seems consistent with the other homes on this street. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) trim detail shall be added to the window facing the street; staff to review; 2) stone wainscot shall be added to the entrance column; 3) columns at the garage shall wrap around the corner to the wall; and 4) stone shall be taken down to the earth rather than suspended in the air. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 9-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Court, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a carport located in the front yard 20' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-120 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this case was presented at the last two meetings. At the first meeting on February 12, 2013, it was approved for conceptual design and at the second meeting on February 26, 2013, it came back for approval of construction drawings. It was continued subject to carport wrapping the fascia to tie into G:1Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\1 ARCN Minutes\2 01 311 3 03 1 2min.docx Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE �W COMMISSION � MINUTES March 12, 2013 existing fascia and no exposed hardware. The applicant states he is not able to do that. He presented the construction plans for review. MR. DAVID NARZ, applicant, understood there were three suggestions on a redesign at the previous meeting. He described his existing carport and said by dropping the ledger down as was suggested, he would have to remove stucco, re-engineer the carport lowering it to a level of 6'-7" and when it goes out he would still have to put it over a beam post construction and cantilever to get 18'. That beam would get down to about 5'-7" which means it would essentially be a patio cover because his vehicle wouldn't fit under it. He presented photos of 10 carports in his neighborhood and described the details of each one. He understands what the Commission is asking because there are a lot of houses that have just the straight lines. He was here originally to get approval of an 18' setback because when the City incorporated this area the restriction was that if you convert your old carport to a room, you have to add a carport. However, now with restrictions on the setbacks, he �s not able to have it setback 20'. The Commission and the applicant discussed the post to beam hardware. MR. NARZ said if you look at all the post beam connections they are not visible because it's all painted. The Commission reviewed the photos presented of the neighborhood carports and discussed the hardware. Commissioner Vuksic said he walked Texas Avenue because he wanted to give this a fair look. He was hoping to be convinced that this was fine and in keeping with the neighborhood; it's not what he walked away with. He was actually impressed with a lot of the carports on Texas Avenue and thought they were nicely done. He reviewed the applicanYs house and inspected a carport about three to four houses down that was similar to this as far as the quality and exposed hardware and framing underneath; although it aligned the carport structure with the fascia. The house was architecturally interesting and he could see how the carport worked with the home. MR. NARZ asked if the Commission could agree that people have different design ideas and thinks doing shapes is okay in some cases and not having a straight line is not necessarily the norm. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. NARZ discussed the plaster below. MR. NARZ said the plaster was original to the house. They continued to discuss the wood fascia, wood posts and connections and how to G:\PlanninglJanineJudylWordFiles\1 ARCNMinutes12013\130312min.docx Page 4 of 15 � ARCHITECTURAL RE� �V COMMISSION � MINUTES March 12, 2013 bury it all with a plaster bottom like the rest of the house instead of having exposed 2X's on it. MR. NARZ's engineer stated that it would be a lot thicker if they did that. If the Commission wants a 6X beam on each side they will have to be more like a 6' x 12' or a 6' x 14' to get that out there and then carry it the other way. That profile gets much thicker than any of the other fascias on the house. MR. NARZ asked if the Commissioner was suggesting that he remove stucco from the face of his house, put a ledger to that, re-waterproof, and still tie into the roof. He said that it would be too costly. Commissioner Vuksic said yes for it to be consistent with the quality of the other carports around the neighborhood. MR. NARZ said he could agree to disagree. Mr. Bagato said this was here for architecture compatibility and when the applicant first came to Planning, he only wanted the setbacks approved and didn't give enough design details and this was the risk he ran by waiting. MR. NARZ said lines were lines and they haven't changed. Mr. Bagato said the plans didn't have any specific details it was just for the setbacks. It's an exception based on architectural merit and not allowed by the code. It's the purview of the Commission to decide the architectural merit of the carport. Commissioner Gregory asked if the carports in the photos were built prior to incorporation. Mr. Bagato said the City didn't incorporate until 1973 and there is a lot of hodge podge within that country club and the county allowed different designs. Staff looks at proposals for current standards and how compatible it will be with the applicanYs home and the adjacent homes. The Commission and the applicant discussed the setback reduction exception and the architectural design of the carport. Commissioner Vuksic referred to photo number 10 and said it was on a house that is very different from the applicant's. It's a lot more contemporary looking and the carport works on that house. The applicant's house has a plastered bottom on the existing cover and the G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARCNMinutes\2013N30312min.docx Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE ��W COMMISSION ' � � MINUTES March 12, 2013 way the applicant is proposing his carport it looks utility driven and not much consideration to the aesthetics of it. Commissioner Gregory said the applicant clearly feels strongly about the approach this design is going. He asked if there are ways from an architectural prospective that this proposal, while different from what has been suggested, might still be workable. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't see it because it comes down to three basic things; one is the height difference, two is the exposed framing, and three is the hardware. He discussed the height, the alignment with the house, and the exposed framing. MR. NARZ asked if he dropped the carport and had larger lumber coming towards the street, how he would get to the point without moving the posts out to the right-of-way. Commissioner Vuksic sketched out how this could be done. He and the applicant discussed the construction of the carport. Commissioner Lambell said the Commission doesn't like to fall into the opportunity to design the applicant's carport. Our responsibility is to make sure that the aesthetics of what is proposed not only enhances the property but also is compatible with the rest of the community. What Commissioner Vuksic has given the applicant is an alternative and rather than dismissing it, she suggested taking that idea and measure the vehicle to see if it will fit under the carport. MR. NARZ said that overall it does conform to the neighborhood. Commissioner Gregory suggested the Commission go out and take a look at the other carports in the neighborhood to give the applicant a fair response. Mr. Bagato said the Commission can make a decision and the applicant can appeal to Council. MR. NARZ asked if there was an opportunity for the Commission to vote to see how they feel about the project. Commissioner Levin asked Commissioner Vuksic what his objections were. Upon reading the minutes he thought the issue was only about the hardware being exposed. Commissioner Vuksic said his objection was with the way it would look at the height it was connected to the building and how that would G\PlanninglJanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�2013N30312min.docx Page 6 of 15 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE4 �V COMMISSION � �,� MINUTES March 12, 2013 juxtapose to the existing cover and exposed framing below while the existing cover is plastered below. It would make it look like it was just added on without a lot of consideration to the aesthetics and how it marries to the existing house. Commissioner Levin asked if the applicant were to leave it, at that height and plaster the underside, would that assuage some of the concerns. Commissioner Vuksic said this is worth another look because he thinks the neighborhood is worthy of it. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to continue to give the Commission an opportunity to look at this more closely. Commissioner Lambell made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Levin asked if the applicant would submit new drawings. MR. NARZ asked if they could take the vote. Commissioner Gregory said they can take it to a vote, but it would be for continuance. He thought this would work to the applicanYs advantage to give the non-architects on the Commission a chance to take a look at it and have a better understanding of it so they can then vote with some confidence. Commissioner Gregory and the applicant discussed the motion and taking the vote. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission was looking for additional input from the applicant or would it be continued for two weeks to give the Commissioners the chance to go out and take a look at the house and the compatibility of the neighborhood. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development said there would be Brown Act issues if a quorum of people got together. She suggested that if this is continued for finro weeks, that each Commissioner goes out independently and takes a look at the house. Commissioner Gregory said there is a motion for a continuance and called for the vote. The motion carried 9-0 to continue. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\1 ARCN Minutes12 01 311 30 31 2min.docx Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE� �W COMMISSION �� MINUTES March 12, 2013 MR. NARZ wanted to clarify that sometime within the next two weeks the Commission would come out independently to his home and will have formed an opinion whether it will be approved the way it has been presented or he goes back and redesigns it. Commissioner Gregory made a suggestion to the applicant to take photos of homes in the neighborhood as examples of what he wishes to do or ones that look good which will bolster his arguments. Then submit the photos to staff to distribute to the Commission so they can specifically visit those homes and see what the applicant is calling for in a positive way. The Commission discussed a redesign be submitted prior to the meeting. Mr. Bagato said the Commission needs to form a decision as a whole whether or not it should be redesigned and then if the applicant doesn't agree, he can appeal to City Council. We don't have to have him redesign it yet. The applicant has heard the comments and if he can come up with ways to address them that he's comfortable with within the next two weeks it would help. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to continue Case MISC 13-32 subject to the Commissioner's conducting an independent onsite visit to the applicant's home to review the architecture of the home. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 9-0 vote. 3. CASE NO: MISC 13-42 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOUGLASS KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 6' high block wall 12' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 44-870 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this case was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant to return with a 6' block wall and gate design 12' back from face of curb. The applicant submitted plans similar to the existing wall and gate. Staff is recommending approval. G1Planning\JanineJudy\Word Filesl7 ARCNMinutes120t3N30312min.docx Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE �W COMMISSION � � MINUTES February 26, 2013 Commissioner Gregory added that recommendation to his motion and Commissioner Colombini seconded. ACTION: Commissioner Gregory moved to approve subject to increasing the Muhlenbergia and Hesperaloa from the 1 gallon to 5 gallon size and using both yellow and red Hesperaloa. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners Levin and Clark absent. Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Van V�iet, adding Case No. MISC 13-32 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-1-2, with Commissioner Mclntosh abstaining and Commissioners Levin and Clark absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Court, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a carport located in the front yard 20' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-120 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this carport proposal received conceptual approval at the last meeting on February 12, 2013, subject to the applicant submitting final working drawings for review and approvaL The plans were presented and the Commission reviewed and discussed the posts and a section of the carport that stands up higher than another section. They suggested that the fascia needs to match and tie in. At this point, several people were talking at the same time making it difficult to transcribe the minutes. Commissioner Gregory left at 1:30 p.m. G:\PlanningUanineJudylWordFiles\1ARC\1Minutes�2013N30226min.docx Page 11 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RE4; �U COMMISSION � MINUTES February 26, 2013 Commissioner Van Vliet asked if this can be approved at staff level or should it be continued. Mr. Bagato said staff will inform the applicant of the Commission's comments. If the applicant doesn't agree, he can come back to the Commission. The applicant took a risk by not submitting a design because he wanted the Commission to review the construction drawings first. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve subject to: 1) wrap fascia to tie into existing fascia; 2) no exposed hardware; and 3) integrate beam into the structure. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 5-0-1-3 vote, with Commissioners Gregory, Levin and Clark absent and Commissioner Mclntosh abstaining B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported on the last Art in Pubtic Places (AIPP) meeting. He stated that three traffic signal boxes will be painted on Fred Waring Drive at Phyllis Jackson, Portola, and at the Palm Desert Library; a mural will be painted onto the wall at the Palm Desert Community Center; the new exhibit, "My American Icon" is in the Palm Desert Gallery; the docent program is getting up to 60 to 70 people per tour; Desertscapes is continuing; Coachella Valley Water District is still considering their public art display; ongoing lectures take place at the Coachella Valley Art Center in Indio. MS. KIM HOUSKEN provided information on Walter White, a local designer who built several homes in the Coachella Valley. His collections will be on display at the Art, Design & Architecture Museum at UC Santa Barbara now until March 24, 2013. G:\Planning\Janine JudylWord Filesll ARC11Minutes12013\130226min.docx Page 12 of 13 • ARCHITECTURAL RE� �IV COMMISSION � MINUTES February 12, 2013 MR. DEAN HINSON, General Contractor, said the a 'cation is exactly the same. The plans calt for a sprayed on po ea application. However the approved application, which i ill polyurea, is not sprayed on. He is proposing StryoSpr ,000 which is a roll-on application. The pattern matches t ock walf and it can be sanded and painted. The Commission as if the grout lines would be as deep as the existing grout lin and MR. HINSON said he would match them. ACTION: Commissi r Vuksic moved to grant approval subject to: 1) grout lines shall match isting grout lines and reviewed by staff in the field; and 2) finished pa�,i'� product shall have a flat finish not a sheen finish. Motion was seconded ;lSy Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-0-2 vote, with Commissioners � Colombini and Clark abstaining B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 13-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID NARZ, 77372 Evening Star Court, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a carport located in the front yard 20' back from face of curb. LOCATION: 43-120 Texas Avenue ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated the applicant is requesting to construct a carport 20' back from face of curb within the front yard. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single-carport into living space, and provide a new 192 square foot single-carport. The carport is 16' x 12' with a 2' overhang, attached to the main house off the second bedroom. The carport is designed as a trellis painted to match the existing house. The carport will be designed as a single- carport held up by 4' x 4' posts and 4' x 6' header. The carport will be located 20' back from face of curb. Staff believes the design of the carport bfends into the architecture style of the home, and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff has not received any comments in favor or opposition to this request. G:1Planning\Janine Judy\Word Filesll ARC\1Minutes�20131130212min.docx Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL R6� ;�W COMMISSION {� �� MINUTES February 12, 2013 Commissioner Stendeil said when he drove by the house he noticed T- 111 siding nailed on to the building where it looks like it used to be a carport or some sort of addition. Mr. Swartz said this area was built under the county and annexed back in 1994 so there aren't any permits on it. He pointed out that one of the stipulations from the Building Department is that the applicant must add an openable escape window or a door at the bedroom where the carport will be attached. This was okay with the applicant, but it does not appear on the design drawings. The Commission reviewed the drawings but there were no construction details attached and asked how this carport would be built. MR. DAVID NARZ, applicant, informed the Commission that he didn't want to go beyond the architectural renderings unless he got approval because he didn't want to go to the expense of having an engineer design the construction. He stated that it would be similar to the existing construction, probably a 6' x 6' post on each side on top of a concrete pier and headers. All three sides will be open and the roof will have asphalt shingles to match the house. It will slope just enough to get the rain off and have a drip edge. Commissioner Vuksic said this is a simple house and carport design which works well together, but it comes down to the details. The Commission needs to know how things are connected, does it look clean, is there a lot of exposed metal, and are the members thick enough to look right. MR. NARZ said there is the typical post beam connection there now along with the foundation connection which is probably Simpson products that can be painted. He has no intention of having big wrought iron black ornamental steel. The Commission discussed the size and type of materials for the carport. The applicant mentioned having a 16" on center because he didn't want a large span. The Commission discussed the two-car driveway. Mr. Swartz stated this was circulated to Public Works and no concerns were noted. Commissioner Stendell made a motion to conceptually approve subject to applicant submitting final working drawings for approval. G:\Planning\Janine JudylWord Files\1 ARC\1 Minutes\2013\130212min.docx Page 7 of 11 . - � ARCHITECTURAL RE4. � COMMISSION '�. ;,,� MINUTES February 12, 2013 Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic informed the applicant that one of the things the Commission will be looking for is that the connectors are hidden. Commissioner Cotombini made the second. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved to grant conceptual approval subject to applicant submitting final working drawings for approval. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote. 2. CASE NO: CUP 12-231 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOS ANGELES SMSA LP, dba Verizon Wireless, Attn: Mike Hayes, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D104, Irvine, CA 92618 TURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a co inued item to find an alternative cell site location. LOCA ON: 73-251 Hovley Lane ZONE: PR- : Mr. Kevin Swa Assistant Planner, said this item was continued from September 25, 2 12 for a 68' tall monopalm at Temple Sinai. He presented a Power int presentation of the property and the proposed location of the monop m. The Commission had some concerns with the previous proposal because of the impact on the adjacent neighborhood and lack f landscaping in that area. This was continued to allow the ap 'cant to find an alternative site for the monopalm. The applicant i now proposing the monopalm to be located directly in front of the b ilding along with existing palm trees that range in size from 48', 55', 5 ' 46' and 27 all the way to 44', 53', 55', and 34'. The equipment shelte will be located in the parking lot. The biggest impact is that the monop m will be directly in front of the Temple Sinai building, which has been proved by them. Commissioner Gregory said it appears tha the equipment shelter is plopped right on top of the asphalt. He a ed if there would be curbing around it to make it looked finished. MR. MIKE HAYES, Spectrum Surveying and Engi ering, said this structure will be a masonry building and the roof will m h the existing building. G:\Planning�Janine JudylWord Files\t ARC\1 Minutes12013\130212min.docx Page 8 of 11 J .� i , �s+ � � ;�. � �,, ' � � �; " ��, ��_ _,, �+�1 i . �., % ,��qy'�t} ��, n�' `'r° ..Y�"'� � �� k�ALM �' . ._Vx _ � �•�'�* �.�!. � E . :I�t �1��i��' l: i n •i;.1 d r. �� I 5.ri(�?,�'j I�,pM'J':: i ��A��'1� �I � K Y� 4.� Y k+�,I,"':� � � . N "ir'..�:. . r,�t :k�.,�.. �' g, a _:� x�d �"K��I t,i \�. r��3 � ��, s ,�.; ; �' � � at '��_ w ��,,;,� y' .:f {�� "�{ �� Ftl 4'1+�f ..4�'i.. � ' '�I �� t },/� -� ES � ., �l�.`�d�'1 :. ;�,,� � � . ��,;:; >� ,�� .,-. � ,"` f : ,a�.° r _,y '. '�' � � , ,. _ �., ��,�w� �, �=:. x � ''� 'ia � �y . � �. _ � . t �'r��' � ��'�� i�k � I^�t t�� ..� �,�, A F� i . -i . .�� '. �.Sti., h.. � %�;� W �� _ �;�� <°i�'�� ' �3' �14 .� ._-.,. � � ht � SJ".�.. ' k a ~ �, .. iy �� 3A. �y.. ��r •`�:L. � 'J�{i.� l� -�'�., ab:li'. . � � �'r:- '� .K�,' ' f ;�' �'�� i"• , '� r� ��a'�Q; � ' '� � �'' ,�7u�� ° `�� '! - ,, �;. �n N,� �tif . . . ._ . � ....e . ._. � 7` �y��tii}w.�2�� a �. � . - �' � - �,� d � t,�� "�'�.:'.� � f � ��q�n, � 1t K✓Y �.' _�f . , . . . r.>,, � �.�� ,� iq t'�, �r� 7i� �� a i��. . . . � �. . . �-dY^rysA�y r�'� 8� �;. � °�'�� , ��1 ,��Y°�d� ��6 �� d �� `�� i �� y � �5 i ti;i � f � +�d�t4��i' �� iy � � � �� F� �L �' `� '�s.�� 4 i �`�;�,�"r . :f �_ � �a y�_ . � � �y , . . � n��y ��kq�rti �� .. ��. . . �� ?�. �� . . � ` �, �d �+� . . . � - � '�r �� : � , . �4 � �� } � 1 y �� '�� •�a:4,t ,�.� ��" i � � � � F ��:f i�� . , �z�,i� �� .w... �, -1.�(�r� 1 '� ,� �,. ., .�� t C��I �� °,�a � �*�},l5 �t��f f � � ��...i��l�' i r � R . � g�� .� ur��r' a �� ' � ,., � � ti�� ' � , �� , r, �� E ; . ,".-�''F � � 'ij� . : i � � � '�1�,7�rx�"� .. . . � � r�.� � , ��;�;.� n � �� n,t i � i � .��' � ��i 4� � �� '� ,. �i �1 � �� , ��'fi��ffs` J t ;� , c , � � �'tr � � ` �� ` fi �� / � � � E -�, ". u� ��r� , `�y��rrr ;,;'� � � y ,,,g ��s .q�-��` �. � . . . k{i. 4 . _,f� �t a ��' ... .,_,-� � _",`� . . . . . . � 4 ,� .. ,... � �� f ..�1 - ��.�__ . , "N€ . � „f'i m £4L8-99£(09L) xej e��► _ c,,, Z�L8-59£(09L)auoyd � , � { � 68ZZ6 V�'�ape�e��nA m - �� q� �� k� 40E aiins ,.�nnH swled 6Z 94bL9 � � _ ��f,�R,�' 3�IA213S N91S3a dNtl 9NI1�V21a �� S1d3�N0� N�IS30 3 > c Q c L ¢ 'vo Lc � '" �S « C�� p o,� �� 'OO �L D �d '�o F--� U �•- �� N — 3� �C U N a �t �� N m mn N"O �� tn o� W V a u'a . a£ a V �� ._� U=L i^n�a -D p v,� ,�m z�i � ch � ._ Un w� _ ��na`�i U�a�i 3�N a-a �� Z m m ..� ^ m� n v=a va� a � w-�.E v'N in�- O� >p � p� �y U v� g'p°' °'nz o--w U'p�� ?i�o LLa cm �< z� � �n� �d D 41m �O �U„ U�O� On� �v� CJd "Oc �O .. W� (V UN 64/ Q g �a� a�° Uz� Y�a V�a $�� aLL . °�� .. m¢? � ..z� .. � a�O �' C O��U 'O y CJ .Y�.9 q N� E�� .p O-U �V �C W w J (n Q N � O ry �b G � aUc� a�ac� v� t�S amS o�E UVU a� � Vw z�F- v ¢V .. inm sb; P � mv� �� ,�a �� a�i� wi�� :�u c� � �No ozO� Q �-= � �odm W � m ��m� �c� �c'-�'.� -c�� c g'.� �o,a cLL� `o'g.� � ��O ��a ,- a> z N o� �- � �c °��-p c��d�p °W,� �v� ,`o�n�o o�= o_� -�N p� �- a oa iy � � � a� _ � . =�� . - m' -ga� �j_. a v�aZ in�^m� a`� � � v z � z � V o O O�O U � t J� O V s O V�� U 4� O f t3 E O Z d'Q Z��V � E `- I�H O � O m V °i V O—d O E¢� O E¢� O� O oU no V O Q� O �cJ ch— M �j O c— �y a 2 O O p _V N U U U�Z O a �d d `0 4 Q U p oa,� "+o,= o«.;� o�`°a o��°< o=-N od� N2�, W �`�� n0� �2— ��vi N��V NUU tVcO _�'O N N P� N 0 c t•i a0� R P`��a N P`�° 'O t t �'P`� '-�c W �pc � c t�« 8a`> S r•-•- «Oa`� �Qw ■ Z � F 1(V_ d.L�-_ 0 N Z C N=Q d(V�O 2�a 2�N= 0 U N � O �/�O r - - - - - - - - - - - -1 -- ti � Z o � � � ;,� � I �� _= ivw3a oi I ,� 3niaa 131 ' 1 � � I > Qr a � ; ' � a N I N o � W �I x� d o� • N N 1 a< o g �� F-� (n I os o0 oS �� N I I 1 � _ � I ( - i M■ � t .OZOZ d'� I � °I . AVM3AIN4 M3N - � I i �� :� � � i ��C o ` - - - - - - - - �, _ .o-,a _ _ J � i � .00� � I � �., O� J W �� .0-.OE � � o � I = I � I � � z I � I X .0'.6 w � C I .v-.� � � � I ca a `� • � � > m � - N a= w • a w � � � Uo � o � � . � ��u J ioQ '�- '` : '� "6 o N ( N . • O N ' • � 1 O .•a' . O I � a�. � � — — a � � _ o I ' Q� � �� W � I �� ?< 1 I ., . �� . �•, ' NN � � 1:. .� .. : C w � � � (: • . •I : : � � � > i � � � � I. � •. - ' �. � � I '; � C I s ` � � � � ' o o L� � � i, .r� ' -� � , i - . • - � � Z i i � • . '..�I. t�. - o i o � � I �•. • ''� � o � � > �� > i w i .. . �� w � e i Z � `�' � i � � � � LL i i � Z i Z Z � I v�z� N � N �-w � O in 3 w � w � Owz I �xo� � � ' aQ�w I �� o � O �00� 3 I z a�vv �, � I I .9'.L �' E4L8-99E(09L) Nej 4M"�`°�• ZhLB-99E(09L)auoyd � � � g� � b8ZZ6 V�'�a��eqeaan�, � \ - /�' $ �� 40£aains ��(MH swled 6Z 94bL9 a � o ` v �, � �`c��+�` 3�IA213S N91S30 dNV 9NIl�Vi14 � - - - ° S1d3�N0� N�IS3a N� Z ww� � � � r=-wUU ~ f- tn � w �-��¢ �i = a � a � � _�d� � N w �' Z � � �-C7QN o � � � � <�Q t��Z� � � Z w �w= 00 � N ¢ v � LL�4 V d � U > > W �>w Z WF2-f�Vl m � fn = Q�2 OZQwU .0'.LZ V3zp � Z < .� wV7� Ux>�wpN�. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� W W U Q ��J�U2 �=W N�W-�� U Q>Z N �¢�'W� �'Ow w O 1-w=w N � .21 L O l-.9 .ZI L U L'.9 .b'.Z N .�id'�� QSK F.Q�VI= Q�m z ��Ouf¢ x�� av�Oo�Q zO�wa � az0 �03 �O=Zm� . � WLL U��m�pa �� =OQ O Of � O 10S Z QOa� 2nZ�0¢� �w'c OwLL�n=Z '��/.. ��0w OO-ac�W= ��cQ ��-��V�Q evr � 6 6 � N-V U V Ua'�pc'�I- >wm d'�-i`ppin _ ' m ?o cn rz�<7�0 O�w 30¢waW o u I (n mx z0=�oa�cia�m �o"�v'-i� � o o y/, � - � I W~a�~ O w�0 Y 2��00?> N U N N V)H �y � �W� u • - � \ ' QN N�LLU4+w Z Q Z�N �n � `'�J u � y` \ ��o I ~OZNa n �=w[Dd'�Z� �QD�d.2 =� O � � O' � ` V70' _ � NV� 1-��dQ-w �-QZ .• 3 O OwZ��Z?�N�L02wN�Z N Z m H�=� Q j (\ �' _ / = 9 - O�� I< _ m_ Z- m ��na� °°a� '° � $ _ ^ Ja�no�-J'aaN p� F--��zz°°��N�No o < - a°°^ �` Qg¢5��x�'z�<a�ow¢a�nWw�ZWZ ' � �o - 02�mowzav��.,Zo�-xu+�„o3�c�iz� �� - - wzo��i�a��Waw¢��wWw�� - � � I� z��N>�xN=��Q�oQ��O�m¢��Z � �o W�SxmpLLw3�n.WoY3_a&z��00 /��V=1LLZ(n�V�=�W-Q�W�x-j��Q - w V r?OQZNQMF-V(n�(X1�O�I�w 00�O�Z 2 Z - _ V F- - Y a C `/ Z � � w _ � p x o - � � 2 N y� U N W O �'1'� V. � Z m � w � ac� � `n", �5 � � Z - c� `no c�=oo �< �wo - �' (n � 0-' z Wc z3 � �� z�j o ? � � � a 0 u'i W 2 O W Z 3 � � � Nw �� a- 0 O o 3 � �� NV �N �wd � � �^x ��-'zw zz `�„"�¢ a o � LyJ V c7f- aLLOm ¢Oc� WO� o � r - = Z c.� tn Q V j r-w Z �, � d .., � � i� � a�' ��mi Om= v>o� a � �`< �o � - � � _� gw�`�' �a� �>� ci � " �� I () � �t- ' >N3z Ocinr- r�-00 � � LLy � �¢ a"z'o=�W=v ?ocZwi �d� m � � �30 - _ � r=- - � z � wg z ?� �� a��3 iWo z¢m v�i o �� o °° c° 9 sa Z =� v� v� �m � �$a�= _ W mc9 �p2 �nr-'cQw ��eZ x J� � O ao - '^W M- - _ Z g � V1Q=wm �pU j¢w W '"ms�° oG , . o� Q �'_ ��V =ar�N LL�z 2N�� a �oJ � . �z � > > N y=�� gNQ f- ?'n W�� vC�C�U �< U�w � o ~ ��m ' . z gp �Z� YZ�Za Wg� WZo �Zo oj"w'a rco� Q Q ' W �c=i o�Z Z'"�xr- vw� zc`�'.>v Oc.~.� 0 3`-'�= W4o . . • • .. I 0 �N W ��& • • . `3"� c�� a>�� ww z�0 xN � ��8� oaw � g . • o. I N ?< zcv Joz¢"' �zc=.� -'gg �z � W��_� - p � _ . . . � . . � � LLJ a" a�� v�2� i¢� a» ¢¢ � ��W�awQ=m - � � - • 00'^ • ' _ I m �dLL � =wY �U�? �NN�Z o �6Sodad"�'pa � � V • . ddo a � �5 cv�o rio�c�m �?cn ui?? �o� s m�� o'�� ,�= m m $ ' � �a� ' � .i 1 a c� . . . I . ' ' . . • I wooaa3e .. ' • . . • . - � aoi MoaNi M3 ' .o-.o .o-s i .o-z .o.e� aa �o o.. _- qAo i a oQ o a _ E - �� v �o.. a oE _ - Uy a 6 _ �. _ n E � - yN3E ' Qo u �.m aQ _ � _ ui ^'3 U .- c T �n Oa� U = zoR�3� �0 � LL � � Ei=_- y� n��U��-� o � �Nina�S N d5£1 � � -- � t�i'�m h�`�yc=�i�c z� E �$ �� D E�, _ =�oL�� -, � �� y � � un� _ �E � �ca_=o o= m �Z � LL� R � �� 'm�NO v�a;o E cnEd �nE w� � 2 yyy/// - � -EEp a�'-_ - c�.i G.c- nn � �� !+� g LL � � � �� X mm�p- � _ - Ta E p o 00 - h � S � � � � � � � �2 �� - �w � n E c� d in a D - �� o c d -_- - = � n E 3 d.Q - _ 38 qQ _ - J �_.�� o � � � O�� .��g� . �EOV `a<v T» -�;D o' om_ < � 3��€g �� q � � � � J�ff�� d��o�'n�'o u �.0000,° " € .. � s � � �q�� c� � �s � r` � ��"�rc �� o�- - A � 'y �5 S000 _ _ = ow`oo= o- qY �'^ no � �LL�� W�Wg�2{8O�wm� � � '� � � ,� � ��c��yurcR u�'im o �n a'v =a'� V Em � �..cia �� U,,1 ��N N F�viFS�3 � U � �u � � � � I'� O��'1 Ya <�<Y cmc u �E `oo`aOaEa W o U >S`�Q��2�� «�.a.�.c�-_m � " O Ev�u'it�x <�a��ao= " a;`�p<._ �j xnn�lliTTtfit.�h�..¢. �"�00� �� "7:�w� � aUaiA��Epa� - j w��N��n'A��a� � � � o. ¢�nms'U.'_^3amGuf w >in Y � � �� ,�' � �� . . i + +� � � � � :;�� . }� � I��7��' � �r�£�.y�tt�� ` ��,,` �, �, s�,^�r�'h�„��, R, �{ii�"� , q �,'�row�C��rp�a�'Y� '.ai ` t- "47 � '��';,,,,'� #��S .e r� �1 E � �#�,^�a$'�� 'k 3 � � '� �.. �'� G��f � , '� '�„�+*a�'��ri � f � �„.. ��Y��`��". � � a � � ��a � ��.�� z r:r��:� � ��; � � � r ..ry ..' �, " C�.�"'� �r�f s�,5'L<,.� �'z f � R ` � " q �' ,�� ,.��'� ti�� ;� � � �� '* t�'a,�'��,� � �` y.�� , � �� fi '� ��x � g ,;'`� , `,��y�s�� ..� � � ,a �' �� ,� � �� i � �.. � r3 �"��; � s�,` E �$ �.� . g : �� g �� ; � �'`� �� . ��''�@� � d�y�s ��. �� hLMye..k�,� v�'N��' °��d��44: � � '.t��,��'� � w �`�;r.. ��'.�. r'"��y '` �4 z 4 h�i"ezT` M1l; . e YY�'�' fi �� `. y�� l�* � q�i; ,� �`> �;s � t� ��'��I l �V " �� z'� �� . a . �. ,� � ;"y; � � �. � �� e � r��e �z�„";t� �v � � �� ,.�� '�. X��?� � �a�r�, �",�'' �",�'� ��y,�^ • � w, �' r` �c � � �s`sxa � �i � �� ,�' c� ;``'4h �� '��.�, S;4 M � � �' n`#��.� �.,"' � � -� - ��.� �s� x� r � '�,+ X ��$�e kb"�"� . ,". � � . � r �'t' 5`�� f'. E � . �`�r� �� F�� 'S�d�`��'��.a5��F$'-�g��. '' �d,. f`"d�� $` A3 °';, � 1,�. �� k t � a,., �i,� �;�`r i�t�,�,�+��' �� ,� �� x �,�, � �.- ��t� '� _ ��,,.� �� , � - 1�,: L i �� d �� x � ... . ' �� , � � �4" i-� . � ��ti � � � ; � ` '`` � '��``��. � t� ' ' :µ� a� � r '��5'�, �'1 � �#: e�a,'•..�3` . �s`�`�..�b a�� j�"r � � t x ��, � � �r41r. a �� t n a,��3 �.i . . � i��.�� `� � � '�� 3��. � f x�� .� � µ �'�r� �`�' � i��; � r�y�''�'��,.�t�'�'� �#�� ' � 4' ,�*�e .t y! ��,: , `k Li f 9 M..1 s��p �i e {'�S: � �� r .s , ,r ' y�{.� �+ f^�§+'.w. �,33 °4,� � � � � 5�d?A'� 2 d ,e�t '` p�� ° j��iv� >�� ' ��.., `x��'��s��r�`�t� ��, � ;� ��.�,�(�r�t�� , ��;s� sl` ?�d ii�'+�+..a,:. y,��'.'` �i"� � . �` � :'��i�s'j�� :§'� �� ,:� � t , t � n aar n�it'. 3 .m , x �� `�� ; ��t� ; � �, s , ,,_... . ;,. ; � � �� , ,,�, s„�z t�u �, � : �e. 7 w,� r ��3:�� ' , .N �w',. � " ` '� ��.� x � k a�, � . ':�� , � ..�.'�'."�s� �'a J ;�r ,.`. :.� ,. . � ' ,y °,� 3;'^�„�',y„ k��E ��.PM,� ��`� , 1 .R• c �"�. � '�''`i s .r,a"'�`�e �� #..�i�;� �:�� ? �t��F�a;,�`� t,�S 3,�;�7`�� d;;i v.'�",.,'� � .bt��..� � i `�� . 9�'�.✓�� 5� �.�a�` �'i"�ri x "s�`"'�'1 ��1 c -i-;, .�� z x ziu�c�`r<. .�` � � '°� ° "`� t , t �` ',,�. '��`�z�'�y,,. ,��.�" ��,,�. �'eq�sc"nd >4` �'aag��,y tRb �a� - '"� 't s£ �� ' . n a` ... '�p t,�'� . . ��. ,� ,� ,' �',:.. � a ' P �, 7 �`2�g��"?- „�, �y �� t � x � ' , ^'ai �' _ ' s � �F'�''�,F �e' b�., s r'x� . a,`f �' t<: � � ; . �„ i .,, ,„ �s,�r„`.�.;, . T��t�,,�,��r'.�„ 4 sl,'��z� a�r��„y� ,,�.z „N�,.: �. °��`��,.';'t �z � �� ;$ �,� �a � � � Yp `�' j�r��'' `� � ��'p � „ ��k� �' � � � 4k� t � ys � �rLz ��"�'� � d ! � � 4 eF��#,�'+��' t��i��.� � ''�'q. �� ?.� `N. �j� w� v� qy� �+ k r '� . � '�33'� �'t` "r �a � � � � �� , �, �� r,��T5 �� , �s� ii��y �P�y� c r ��,u � � ; y z�y��j� -0 a � �'�,� . ��m„r.,�. ��.ti�'^� ; r a . ��' '�� ,�� ,,�. '"„, � � F �� r� & � �,� � � � > �� « �� `� �� a � �� ,'�',��,°�� ,t � �;�� '� � �� k ��,��'��z�� p � � ��;�� -�� _ �� '"�� a�'� ' "' x� � � �r� t j � a' � '�' �''��'S�c�y�l�� i z.� � tb � �� *��'"�'�`x�a`��z^�'+�� x5s� M � s C� +, s ,��;�� „�;� �� '�,�'��s�ro„� _ '� , '�``�� . �' �'f„,r� '� �k 7'�#`"'��k ar-t�.,� t4 r /�a �� s.. � �' '"Y � �'��„ ^ � r/i � � � . � �j�Y � �� '� .,� ,� .i'� Y�'''_ .. +�� F�`r� �' �� Y' � � � �� , � � � �� :�� ' _..� � � �� a�� . � ��...�� E � ��,t=� � � a � � ` �� a� ,�� d ��,,� � � � � Y� � �. ,� � r � `� � �� `��'� � �`��'� �, �,'a�� `i �- �`�'��aV.'�� .�� Kw^��z,,,,��zz°�' � � �, �� N`"�� `� �NJ°" �' � � 4 �r � � �` � `��r �+��'y�'��*� a £'�rr£'7-s -: s ��r��""�.�a�n A1 ?^ ,y rs�'�,. �, tt^ i4�;�'+�^A,�a� '��e�i�,r �., � ��e�� 'a��:��,'��,+.ra '� �`�.°��r�.4 a�. � � ��X 4 �,� � � �� r�� '�� M� � , �' �� '�� , ��r �� ` � �.�� ' � � "` P: q��+t��,� � � ��'a� �,��'< > �� '� ,�� ; >��.*> �"°°�_ � �s'�� ! � � �� ? �"� � � � � a�`� z� „�� ' � �. w�r ",� �� ;�z �� `�. s � � � x' . ��. �� - � �� f�' �5�. ! k � ��°�j �'� �� TM �` ,.� � ;�sz�� y ;'� '� r' .��.a�*K�� ` `��`��'��fi�,Y �; �, "&�,�t��in�r` X� .. '"�j � >'a s.�u�C.r`" lia�.;'�� r �,,�� `�� .'�� '� � a � �'�� W � ' a �� . d ��'^� r *' ° ��w z�. � +� t � � � �q° g"�a"�� '' �•�^r% �� ,�d � �' ` � � '� � s�� ',s? � , �� ,,��'�°'�� <� �. ��::��;>M�°� ��.�z��r=�.�.�;s�'�„� �� m £UL8-59E(09L) xej t""'�a�� Z4L8-99£(09L)auoUd � ,i� �` VSZZ6 tl�'�a��e�e�an,� m ^_ /�'� � � �- �� b 40E a�ins ,.�(mH swled 6Z 944L9 � � o ` ' � �;�x��° 3�1�2135 N91S34 ONV JNI1�tl210 � � ' S1d3�N0� N�IS3a � 0 h � _ __- � - - o ;oo ;s � � __-_ - � .- _ .o.�z .� � � ,m �, =o � Q .Zll OL .0'.E .0'.S .�It l-,l �i d o% � ,! G -'Jli 1 Od 9NI1 IM3 v C _ � 3Jtlld NI lJ3l tld — J W '� H � - n O �Q T � � � � � .r '� � � � � ' J/ 3� LL .S 0'.t � � '" .e.l w - 6o N � ;3� � ' 3m H ry ry i � � � 1 _ � O� _ � � v�i�o I u� ' �a _ _ p�� I 'G _uN__ � �• !~. 3o N L � � � � �+� � � � � ! � � � ry .� _ � � C mm i � � �'g�� 'd2a� � f5 - ~ � ��N� �a�a � 6 3 .ai9 > � � ��$o m� � � � _ ��"o`a io�a 7 3 w��' � � � �� _�� o a o �d>,", ��Q � os� s oao bb.'^gvi�� W _ � ..n�n�� =��- _ :� --o - �2'�'f'zn�3' ?�'`'� _ ,.�n_ � � • • - nm vi �Wm� m�u� p� � g�? •Is Q C� = U� '�m=xR��N� �- ��d c oOh � a��y ��wy[��a � _ �' z 3�� z�w�..a� 3 . � ai�i _�Onv+,.. t��arvWg - j_ -�� y 8& ��y�Ga^o8'"=d � - c -ooLL+ d �g��ooao�3�$&g� 40 �n "O >o�pa� c� .. ry ma �n o � m 9 00 � �� m� O o om N^ � _ - - �o� I� � 3�0�03N3MJII{1.8�.8 � I - a`� = I 3 w Y Woav� '^o� LL3�33 � �� o 33? �� o m p 'y � 3 r � F - 3� �� 4-_ ' o�� o3�mu Im c� ewc� y � J` - - _ _ — I I g - 3�3 03N3MJIH1.8 M,8 w� = r� e 9i � .0-AL 3� N � �p `o � tO O _ L'^ > V/ N � .E'�� m;� E �W� �� ' � - �s - --� ,g pp a o;� 03 omo <p - v`�<a oa� o <`o '- o�um �o � oo� (n i.�i��r- ��: �z ,.,w_ _ -p ' _m v� _ E �-r-.r� 9 �.:� � c3 4J m a 0 _ N _ �� u� -- a N ��.�� m _ o r-�� z ��-o.9ims.s•z :� j-f- o � �� `� z � � X a W _ _ m .0".9L .0�.4 _ � N � � - Q W z� L _ _ � '