Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-23 , � � � PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meetina Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Wayne Connor X g 1 Ronald Gregory X 9 1 Kristi Hanson X 6 0 Neil Lingle X 7 0 Richard O'Donnell X g � Chris Van Vliet X 10 0 John Vuksic X g p Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Kim Chafin, Senior Office Assistant Shawn Kilpatrick, Code Enforcement Officer II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2000 meeting. Motion carried 6-0, with Chairman Gregory absent. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 1 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES IV. CASES 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 99-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� HOLDEN & JOHNSON ARCHITECTS for SEAN KEARNEY, 44-267 Monterey Avenue, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings for a two-story 7,500 square foot office building at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Acacia Drive LOCATION: Southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Acacia Drive ZONE: O.P. and R-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the final workings as submitted. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 99-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SELECT PROPERTIES, 18652 Florida Street, #200, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of final working drawings for projecYs main buildings and Building 3 LOCATION: 77-850 Country Club ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Smith reported that the applicant seeks final approval of working drawings for the main retail buildings through the center of the site (Buildings 4, 5, and 6) and final approval of the satellite pad (Building #3). 2 � � , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Staff has reviewed the plans for Buildings 4, 5 and 6 and found them to be consistent with those given preliminary approval in July 1999. The proposed signage on Sheets A-4.0 and B-4.0 exceeds the code limits, so it cannot be approved at this time. A separate sign submittal will be required. Any signs above 20 feet high will need approval of the City Council. The plans for Building #3 have been updated to reflect the Commission's comments from April 14, 2000, as has the site plan for this area of the property. The south elevation has increased undulation, but the doors remain as before. Commission may wish to review the doors further. Staff recommends: 1)that the Architectural Review Commission grant final approval of plans for Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6, excluding proposed signage; 2) that this applicant provide a revised site plan with a table specifying parking counts, landscape areas and building coverage, said site plan to include golf cart parking areas and bicycle racks; and 3) that the applicant process a separate sign program for the center. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that minimum six-inch glass insets be used wherever the glazing butts up. Commissioner Hanson felt that more undulation is needed on the uppermost parapet on the Country Club elevation, and also suggested additional detailing for that elevation since it is will be the most visible to the public. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that the corner columns be thicker or the tops made more proportional. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the final working drawings for Buildings 4, 5 and 6 and grant a continuance for Building 3 to allow the applicant to incorporate modifications suggested by the Commission. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 3 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 79-12 Amendment APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�. F &A ARCHITECTS, 116 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91205 for MACY'S MENS/HOME STORE, 72-810 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings (including signage)for a 22,000 square foot expansion of existing Macy's Mens/Home Store LOCATION: 73-810 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Smith reported that on December 14, 1999, the Commission granted preliminary approval of the expansion of Macy's. The final plans are consistent with those given preliminary approval. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant final approval of the working drawings, including signage. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the final workings as submitted. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 4 � � , ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: CUP 99-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI• TEMPLE SINAI, Burton L. Kaplan, President, 7 Wake Forest Court, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of final working drawings for school addition and landscaping LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane West ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Alvarez reported that this item received preliminary approval at the August 25, 1999 meeting. At the time of approval, the project included architectural modifications to a detached multi-purposes building. The multi- purpose building has been removed and will not be replaced. Staff has reviewed the working drawings for the proposed school addition. With exception to the mechanical roof screen, the plans are consistent with the preliminary plans. Staff contacted the applicant and discussed this issue. The applicant has submitted a revised elevation that more closely resembles the preliminary approval. The preliminary approval illustrates the mechanical equipment screens in different locations. The height of the screens has not changed, but the locations vary slightly. Staff believes the locations of the screens accomplish the same goal, but their exact placement varies from the preliminary approval. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission review the plans for consistency with the preliminary plans and determine compatibility. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that beefing up the columns is a good start. Commissioner Connor noted quite a bit of discrepancy befinreen the approved preliminary plans and the final working drawings, to which Mr. Alvarez replied that, with the Commission's direction, staff can meet with the architect regarding revisions. 5 '�„► �;;' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner Connor noticed that a lot of detail has been deleted, and the proportions have been changed on the columns. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that the roof screening changed the massing on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet requested that the project architect make a presentation to the Commission, and Mr. Drell noted that a landscape plan is needed for the entire property. Commissioner Hanson asked if the addition of the proposed buildings will eliminate the need for the modular buildings, to which Mr. Drell responded that the modular buildings will still exist, but they will no longer look like trailers. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow the applicant to incorporate modifications suggested by the Commission. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 99-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRES�: ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for MAX BRIGGS & DAVID NEIL, 74-996 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final working drawings for a 4,706 square foot o�ce building (Franklin Loan Center) LOCATION: 2 Village Court ZONE: O.P. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the case. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 6 ��rr+� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 6. CASE NO.: SA 00-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI• PARAGON SIGNS, 77-650 Enfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for STAT URGENT CARE, 73-758 Agave Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised plans for a monument sign LOCATION: 73-211 Fred Waring , Suite 101 ZONE: O.P. Ms. Chafin reported that the Commission reviewed the applicant's request on May 9, 2000 and continued the case to allow the applicant to incorporate suggested modifications. The Commission's suggestions included a wider border, a design more architecturally compatible with the building, and a more substantial monument, i.e., a 12-inch concrete or brick base. The applicant has submitted revised plans which address the Commission's concerns. The revised submittal includes a double-sided aluminum monument sign with stucco finish to match the building, a concrete base with decorative block to match the building, a three-tiered cap on the top of the monument, and elimination of the words "Sunlife Medical Center" to create a wider border around the sign copy "Stat Urgent Care Medical Group, Inc." and the medical cross logo. The proposed copy colors remain the same (sintra painted letters and logo in red with gold trim), and the copy measures 15 square feet on each side. The monument height is 63 inches. The sign will not be illuminated. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approved the revised proposal with the condition that this be the only monument sign on the Fred Waring frontage, that the sign be located totally within the applicanYs private property in the grassy area near the northwesterly corner of the building, and that the copy color match that of the existing Sunlife Medical Center. 7 �`` v,r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that the building has wonderful, substantial overhangs, and he had hoped the revised monument sign design would pick up on that, but instead the only change is the addition of a three- tiered cap. He believed the monument sign should look like a piece of the building and sketched an example. The applicant and Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Vuksic's example should serve as the design guideline. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to authorize staff to approve revised plans pursuant to the Commission's direction. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. The Commission indicated that the applicant should be given a three-week extension on existing temporary signage. 7. CASE NO.: CUP Amendment APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: JEWISH FEDERATION OF PALM SPRINGS AND DESERT AREA, 255 North EI Cielo, Suite 430, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 2-story administrative office for Jewish Federation and Jewish Family Service; approval to renovate existing Temple Sinai into a Jewish Community Center LOCATION: 43-435 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Drell reported that this project is an addition totaling three stories, with one story being at subgrade. The building will be set back 58 to 61 feet from the curb. A wall will be built in front of the amphitheater, and there will be a berm in front of the wall. The existing building is 27 feet high, and the tower will go up to 36 feet. 8 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Pam Touschner explained that Jerusalem stone will be used to accent the building. The fascia will probably be stucco with the color to match the Jerusalem stone. Mr. Drell pointed out that the landscaping is typical 1970's style. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that the plans did not have enough detail to warrant preliminary approval, with which Commissioner Connor agreed, and indicated that larger scale elevations should be submitted, especially since this is such a large building, and colors and materials should be called out, and the plans should have full dimensions. Commissioner Hanson asked if the overhangs will be made of inetal, to which Ms. Touschner responded affirmatively, and added that they will be painted. Commissioner Hanson requested that the applicant also submit a roof plan. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to grant conceptual approval of the architectural and grant a continuance on the landscaping plans to allow the landscape architect to address the concerns of the City, especially along Monterey. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 9 �wrr' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 8. CASE NO.: PP 00-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SHOOSHANI DEVELOPERS, 9200 Sunset Boulevard, Penthouse 9, Los Angeles, CA 90069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 6,547 square foot retail building LOCATION: 42-185 Washington ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Alvarez reported that the subject property consists of an undeveloped pad within the Albertson's Shopping Center. The pad has frontage on Washington Street and totals 25,037 square feet. The applicant proposes the construction of a 6,547 square foot retail building. The proposed building has a maximum height of 23'0", and the building is set back 32 feet from Washington Street as required by the City Ordinance. The building design utilizes architectural elements found in the existing shopping center. The building's Spanish tile and ceramic detailing mimic that which is found on the existing shopping center. The building colors will match those found within the center. Staff believes the colors and materials are compatible. The applicant has submitted landscaping plans that incorporate the existing landscaping with new materials. The City's Landscape Manager will be reviewing the plans. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval, subject to comments made by the City's Landscape Manager. Commissioner O'Donnell commented favorably on the colors. Commissioner Hanson asked where the signs will go, and Huge Jorgensen indicated that the flat panels on the walls above the storefronts will be used for signage. 10 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Alvarez noted that the City's Landscape Manager has written comments on the plans, and at this point, the landscape plans are merely conceptual in nature. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant conceptual approval of the architectural and grant a continuance on the landscaping plans to allow the landscape architect to address the concerns of the City, especially along Monterey. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 00-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� GABRIEL KING & ASSOCIATES, 9871 San Rafael Drive, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 for MICHAEL & RALENE SHIMON, 74-301 Myrsine, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL �OUGHT: Approval of 18-foot high single-family residence LOCATION: 77-905 Delaware Street ZONE: RE (40,000) Mr. Smith reported that the applicant requests approval of a 5,880 square foot dwelling and garage. The dwelling is 18 feet high. Structures 15 feet or greater in height require approval of the Architectural Review Commission. This is a large home on a large lot. The applicant has proposed a full hip roof system which helps to reduce the impact of the dwelling. The garage entry is from the east side yard so the front elevation facing Delaware Place has no garage doors. The applicant also shows a detached accessory structure in the required rear yard. These stn.�ctures are currently under a moratorium imposed by the City Council. In the near future, the applicant may be in a position to apply for a conditional use permit for the detached accessory structure. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the proposed dwelling only. 11 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the 18-foot high single-family residence only. The motion carried 5- 0, with Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. 10. CASE NO.: PP 00-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� BOB RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for L.V. INVESTMENTS, LLC, 75-150 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 4,900 square foot industrial building (Building No. 2) LOCATION: 42-100 Beacon Hill ZONE: S.I. Mr. Alvarez reported that the buildings were reviewed by the Planning Commission and preliminary approval was granted subject to Building 2 coming back to the Architectural Review Commission for modifications. The architect has lowered the corner and increased the mass of the pop-outs; so it appears that the concerns previously expressed by the Commission have been addressed. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned that the north side has a zero lot line, to which Mr. Alvarez replied that zero lot lines are allowed in the Service Industrial District. Commissioners Connor and Van Vliet felt there was a lack of sufficient architectural detail, especially in comparison to Building 1. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant preliminary approval of Building 2. The motion carried 3-2, with Commissioners Connor and Van Vliet dissenting and Commissioners Lingle and Gregory absent. Commissioner Lingle subsequently joined the meeting in progress. 12 '�,r+' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 11. CASE NO.: PP 00-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROBERT RICCIARDI & ASSOCIATES, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 for JOHN & MARY OATEY, 51 Gibraltar Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of landscaping and carports for a 7,430 square foot office building LOCATION: 10 Village Court (east side of Village Court, north of Hwy 111) ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith reported that the plans for the carports have been submitted, and they will cover four parking spaces on either side of the entry. The proposed plans meet the City's shade requirements. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the landscaping, but hold back on final approval of the working drawings until after the Planning Commission has had a chance to review the case. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant preliminary approval of the carports and landscaping. The motion carried 6- 0, with Chairman Gregory absent. 13 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 12. CASE NO.: MISC 00-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� TRA ASSOCIATES, .12600 Centrai Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 for ANTHONY CORONA, 40-900 Centennial Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised pians for an addition to a single-family dwelling LOCATION: 40-900 Centennial Circle ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Drell reported that under the new ordinance, the Commission can approve lot coverage befinreen 35% and 50%, with findings of neighborhood compatibility. The proposed addition would bring the lot coverage to 42%. The Commission previously granted approval of the proposed addition, subject to the applicant obtaining concurrence from property owner to the south. The neighbor did not approve of the proposed plans, so the applicant has submitted revisions, and the lot coverage would now total 38%. Mark Allaire, the property owner to the south, explained that the proposed addition will be located in front of his home and will thus obstruct the view of the front of his house from the street. A realtor has advised him that his house will have zero curb appeal if the front is blocked in this-way. He would like for the addition to be set back so that it does not block the front of his home. He is not opposed to lot coverage in excess of 35%, but is merely opposed to the proposed addition blocking the front of his home. Clemente Troncoso, the project architect, pointed out that the proposed addition does not encroach into the required setbacks. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the neighbor's concerns are quite valid and noted that the applicant is willing to compromise, and suggested that the plans be further revised so that the neighbor's house is not adversely affected, with which Commissioner Connor concurred. 14 �rl�►" �" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the revised plans are acceptable to the neighbor, to which Mr. Allaire replied that he is not comfortable with the grade being raised because his property already experiences flooding problems from water spilling over from Mr. Corona's property. Mr. Drell explained that the grading problem would be fixed on the grading plan; so the City's Public Works Department will address that issue. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that the major issue is aesthetics, and the applicant should consider an addition that does not encroach on the aesthetic impacts of the neighbor. He believed the neighbor's concerns to be reasonable, and hoped the applicant would reconsider the size of the addition and try to reconfigure the plans. Mr. Corona remarked that if the Commission feels there is an obstruction, he will abide by it, and suggested removing a portion of the side. Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson felt that the compromise would address the concerns, and Mr. Allaire also found the proposed compromise to be reasonable. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to reaffirm its previous action (approve the plans as submitted, subject to the applicant obtaining concurrence from property owner to the south). The motion carried 6-0, with Chairman Gregory absent. 15 �'" `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 13. CASE NO.: MISC 00-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MR. HESS, 73-480 Sunny Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of a RV storage facility (garage) LOCATION: 73-480 Sunny Trail ZONE: R-1 (43,560) Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Hess seeks approval to construct a large RV storage facility in the side yard of his lot on Sunny Trail, which is approximately one acre in area. The proposed structure is 28' x 48' with an area of 144 square feet and a height of 18 feet. The existing dwelling and garage on this lot are quite large and have full hip roofs to minimize its impacts on adjacent properties (i.e., City park site to the west). The applicant is tied to this style and size of building due to the size of his motor home and the code which limits building height to 18 feet. The applicant had his designer add detail treatment on the edge of the roof to match that on the existing dwelling; however, this proposed structure and its height and roof type do not tie in with the existing architecture. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission not approve the requested accessory building for the following reasons: 1) the proposed structure is not compatible with the existing architecture on the lot; and 2)the proposed structure, due to its mass and height, will not be compatible with the surrounding area and land uses. Mr. Hess presented an alternative plan consisting of a 20-foot high building with a hipped roof. Mr. Hess noted that the only neighbor impacted is the neighbor to the north, and she is supportive of his proposal. Commissioner Hanson noted that the biggest problem is the proposed structure would be like a big box sitting out separate from the house, and it would be better if it was attached. 16 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner O'Donnell felt that it would be very difficult to make the proposed building aesthetically pleasing, given the dimensions needed to house the vehicles. Commissioner Hanson indicated that she could not support a separate building, and if the applicant needs something this tall, it should tie into the architecture of the main house, with which Commissioner Connor concurred. Commissioner Vuksic commented taht a flat roof structure will not work here, and agreed that the proposed structure should look more like the main dwelling, but in order to accomplish that, the structure would have to go up to 20 feet which is higher than the code allows. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue the case to allow the applicant to further explore his options. The motion carried 6-0, with Chairman Gregory absent. 14. CASE NO.: RV 00-4 � APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• DON STEFFENSEN, 43-060 Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval to store an RV in front yard LOCATION: 43-060 Tennessee ZONE: R-1 (9,000) Ms. Chafin reported The applicant seeks approval to store a recreational vehicle in the front yard area of his home at 43-060 Tennessee. The RV measures 11 feet high and 31'10" long (see attached photos). 17 �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES The applicant proposes to store the RV in a 32'10" by 12' space in the front yard area adjacent to the garage. The applicant proposes to screen the sides of the RV with 15-gallon ficus shrubs. The applicant proposes to screen the front of the RV with a planters mounted on rollers. The planters would include 8-foot screens, and the applicant would install Bougainvillea to cover the screening device. The vehicle would be set back 13 feet from the face of the curb (one foot back from property line), and the screening device would be set back nine feet. The applicant indicates that, while he feels his proposal is acceptable, he is open to suggestion from the Commission. The City's RV Ordinance requires that the vehicle be substantially screened and be aesthetically acceptable. Pursuant to RV Ordinance requirements, staff mailed notices of this meeting to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property. As of the writing of this report, staff has received two letters of objection, one from Rodney Thompson of 76-929 Oklahoma Avenue and one from Fred Benford of 42-880 Tennessee Avenue. Mr. Thompson's objections include: 1) traffic hazards created by RVs blocking views of cars exiting driveways; 2) unsightliness and negative impact to property values; and 3) problems associated with the temptation to let visitors live in an RV and difficulties associated with monitoring/enforcing this type of violation. Mr. Benford's objections are related to a negative impact on the neighborhood's aesthetics. The applicant has obtained signatures in support of his application from five of his neighbors on Tennessee, including both of his next-door neighbors and three of the four neighbors directly across the street. Although the proposed screening mechanisms seem aesthetically acceptable, staff is concerned that the RV will still be quite visible, especially since it would be so close to the st�eet (13 feet). In addition, because the RV is as tall as the roof of the building (11 feet), staff is concerned that the resulting visual effect would be similar to that of a building addition which extends into the front yard setback. Therefore, staff cannot support the request. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission not approve the request. 18 �� �� ��F�4�i ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Steffensen explained that he currently stores his RV off-site and he has already used four temporary permits this year to load/unload the vehicle, and the City only allows up to six per year; so he is hopeful that the Commission will approve his request for permanent storage of the vehicle on his property. Mr. Steffensen submitted two additional signatures of neighbors in support of his application. Fran Thompson, 76-929 Oklahoma, strongly objected to permanent storage of the RV on the property, and commented that someone who can afford to buy an RV should be able to afford to store it off-site. Ms. Thompson noted that the neighborhood has had problems in the past with RV parking during the weekends and holidays which has created traffic hazards. Rodney Thompson, 76-929 Oklahoma, noted that it is difficult to discern whether or not an RV parked at a residence has the required temporary permit. Mr. Kilpatrick explained that the City issues temporary permit tags which are to be displayed on the vehicle while it is parked at the residence. Commissioner O'Donnell felt that it would not be possible to substantially screen the vehicle on this site. Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't believe it would be possible to adequately screen this vehicle in the applicanYs front yard. Commissioner Connor noted that the vehicle is as tall as the applicanYs house, and agreed that it would not be possible to properly screen the vehicle in the front yard. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to deny the request. The motion carried 6-0, with Chairman Gregory absent. Whereupon Commissioner Connor left the meeting. 19 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES 15. CASE NO.: TT 29067 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS�• U.S. HOME, 4371 Latham Street, Suite 204, Riverside, CA 92501 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT• Approval of 18-foot high single-family residences LOCATION: 40-752 Portola Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Alvarez reported that the subject property is located on the southeast corner of Silver Sands and Portola. The original plans were never submitted to the Planning Department, but were instead submitted directly to the Building Department with 22-foot high buildings. Planning Department did not stamp the plans because they had never been submitted for preliminary approval, and staff noted that the proposed height exceeded that allowed by Code. The plans have been revised to reflect a maximum height of 18 feet, and are now submitted for approval. The grading plan has already received approval. Commissioner Hanson felt that the architecture looks pretty good, but suggested thicker walls with recessed windows. Mr. Alvarez noted that there are neither window treatments or recessed windows on the side elevations, and the Commission generally requires some type of detailing on all sides. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that either window treatments or recessing is definitely needed on all sides, especially since the buildings are so close together, and noted that Lot 19 should be reconfigured to create a greater distance between the buildings. Commissioner Vuksic felt that window trim would be acceptable on the sides, but felt that thicker walls would be needed on the front elevation. Mr. Smith suggested that the rear elevation have some shading, and Commissioner Van Vliet indicated that the rear elevations need detailing. 20 . �. �: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 23, 2000 MINUTES Mr. Alvarez pointed out that the City's Landscape Manager has not had an opportunity to review the landscape plans. Commissioner Lingle was concerned that the project was being presented to the Commission without giving staff adequate time to review the plans. Mr. Smith commented that preliminary approval would be in order, provided that the Commission's suggested modifications are incorporated into the revised plans, which should be brought back at the next meeting, including changes to the site plan to address the issue of the distance befinreen the buildings. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to granted preliminary approval with the condition that the applicant make the suggested changes to the architecture and site plan. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners Connor and Gregory absent. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. ° STEPHEN R. SMITH PLANNING MANAGER 21