Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-27 WOW CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 27, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 12 2 Kristi Hanson X 12 2 Chris Van Vliet X 11 3 John Vuksic X 13 1 Ray Lopez X 13 1 Karen Oppenheim X 14 Karel Lambell X 8 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 13, 2004 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of July 13, 2004. The motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DENNY'S RESTAURANT, 72-950 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior paint colors. LOCATION: 72-950 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that this item has been on the agenda a couple of times but the applicant had asked for a continuance so that she could be present. Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed colors are corporate colors. Mr. Drell stated that the building is pretty unassuming and needs to be brightened up. Commissioner Lambell asked the applicant, Karen McBride, if the colors are the same as the Denny's in Cathedral City. Ms. McBride stated that they're the same colors. Commissioner Lambell stated that the restaurant is located on Date Palm and it's already painted this color scheme which is brighter than the one in Palm Desert. Mr. Drell commented that there's very little surface that can be painted. 80% of the elevation is either roof or glass. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the main color of the building. Ms. McBride stated that it would be the white color on the color board. Commissioner Vuksic stated that by looking at the proposed color it would be hard to imagine what it would look like. Mr. Drell stated that you have to look at the building and the small area that's actually going to be painted. It's almost insignificant. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he would like to look at the Denny's in Cathedral City because he can't imagine how it would look. Ms. McBride requested a letter that she could give to the Denny's Corporation to let them know that she's working on this proposal. Mr. Drell stated that she'll receive a notice of action. Ms. McBride offered to provide photographs of the Cathedral City restaurant. Mr. Smith stated that she could provide photos but staff will try to shoot some too. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the commission to review another Denny's with similar paint colors in a neighboring community. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GLASS BLOCK PRODUCTS, INC., Maryann Ahlgren, 68-816 Summit Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new industrial building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Commissioner Hanson stated that the plans indicate that there are metal overhangs over the big doors but they don't show up anywhere on the plans and she wanted to know how far they come out and what they're made of. Alan Sanborn, architect, commented that they're made of tube steel and come out about 3'-4' similar to the one that they put on Canyon Bank on Country Club Drive. Instead of being louvered, it'll be solid. Commissioner Hanson asked about the glass block on the west elevation and wondered if it was inset from the panel or flush with the panel. Mr. Sanborn stated that it'll be on the inside edge of the panel. Commissioner Hanson wondered how much of a reveal they'll get. Mr. Sanborn stated that it'll be about 2". Commissioner Hanson asked about the raised portion on the roof. It was suggested that it go back at least 5 , otherwise all you'll see is a little thickness on the side. This will make it look like an element. It was also suggested that the front wall be firred out so that the glass block could be recessed. Mr. Sanborn commented that this location is where the offices are located and they could fir the inside of the concrete tilt-up so they have a full 6" thick concrete wall as the recess. Commissioner Hanson stated that this would be better. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the applicant if there was enough room on the roof to screen the evaporative coolers and the package units. It G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES seems like the parapets aren't tall enough. Mr. Sanborn stated that he can drop the roof down to accommodate the roof-mounted equipment. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) adding firring wall on west elevation to recess glass block, (2) extend wall on the top raised portion at 28' back by at least 5' so that it looks like an element, and (3) drop the roof down, if necessary, to accommodate the roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO.: RV 04-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CRAIG ARMSTRONG, 72-748 Beavertail Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to store RV in the side yard of a single-family home. LOCATION: 72-748 Beavertail Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the neighbors were noticed on this proposal. The applicant is remodeling the existing house and he would like to put in a new wall 7' from the curb at 6' high. There are other properties on Beavertail and also on Pitahaya with 6' high walls at 7' from the curb because they're not in the right-of-way. The plan shows that they intend to use gray precision block, but it'll have to be stuccoed and painted to match the house. His intent is to add landscaping and park a 33' long motor home in his side yard. Photos of the motor home were distributed for the commission to review. Commissioner Gregory asked if the City was anti-precision block, no matter what. This particular material is scored and it might be kind of fun to leave it as it is. Commissioner Hanson stated that this type of precision block is decorative and suggested that the applicant paint the wall, but not stucco it. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 4 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION J U LY 27, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lambell asked for clarification of the plans. One plan shows a 6' high wall and one shows a 5' high wall. Mr. Armstrong, applicant, stated that he's proposing a 6' high wall and a 6' high gate. Commissioner Hanson asked about the color of the house. Mr. Armstrong stated that it's Ralph Lauren moss green (the same as the Buschlen Mowatt Gallery). Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant would consider painting the wall because the gray precision block may not go with the color of the house. Mr. Armstrong stated that the front of the house is tan and the gates and garage are gray. Commissioner Hanson commented that she likes the single score on the block but she's concerned that the plain block is going to look unfinished and little bit rough. Some degree of paint might be a nice way to finish it. She asked about the height of the RV. Mr. Armstrong stated that it's 11' tall and 8' wide. Commissioner Hanson asked if the lot slopes down from the curb. Mr. Armstrong stated that the lot sits about 2'/2 '- 3' lower than the street. Mr. Drell asked why the applicant is proposing a wall that's 6' high to screen an 11' high RV. The code requires that a 6' high wall be 15' from the curb throughout the City. Mr. Bagato stated that the higher wall would help screen the RV and there are other homes in that area that are 6' high and 7' from the curb. Mr. Drell stated that the reason why we changed our ordinance was that there was a decision that it was inappropriate to have such tall walls so close to the curb. Mr. Bagato commented that the RV ordinance stated that the RV has to be screened from the adjacent street. Mr. Drell stated that the RV will be back 25' from the curb. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he thought that it would be a mistake to put the wall 7' from the curb at 6' high. At 4' it would be okay. Mr. Drell stated that the ordinance allows a 4' high wall. Commissioner Hanson suggested having a 4' high wall at 7' from the curb and go back a ways toward the driveway and put the gate in at 15' from the curb and 6' high. Mr. Drell stated that the drawing that was submitted by the applicant was not to scale. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that if everybody builds tall walls right up to the street, then it will look like a walled compound. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the applicant return with photos that show the other homes in the neighborhood that have walls. There's also an issue with headlights shining through the front windows. Commissioner Vuksic commented that having the wall closer G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES to the street will screen the wall better than if the wall was set back further. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the height of the fascia on the house. Mr. Armstrong stated that it's about 10' high at the front entry and the overhang on the angled part is probably 9' high. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it would be nice to see the house in the background to see how it relates to the wall. Commissioner Gregory commented that there are two issues before the commission. One is the screening of the RV and the other is the front wall. He asked the applicant if this would be an asset to the neighborhood, would it sufficiently screen the RV, is the proposed solution causing more of a problem than a solution? Commissioner Lambell stated that this is an awful lot of wall to try to cover up the RV. Commissioner Hanson stated that the RV will be about 3' lower than the curb. The top of the RV will be 8' above the curb. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant if he would be in favor of lowering the front wall to meet the ordinance and then come back with the wall to the 15' mark at 6' in height with the gates in order to block the RV. Mr. Armstrong stated that it would be more obtrusive than having the clean lines of the wall and it would also break up the flow of the front yard. The gates would be solid to screen the RV. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he didn't see how it would be more obtrusive than having a straight wall going all the way across his property. If the wall stepped down toward the house it wouldn't be more obtrusive. He suggested having the wall 12' from the curb and 6' high. This would adequately screen the RV in the side yard. Commissioner Lopez suggested putting in a hedge to stop the headlights. Gary Haroff, a neighbor, was present and stated that what the applicant has done to their house since they've moved in is very nice and it's a big improvement. However, this proposal should not be allowed. No matter what you do, you're not going to block an RV from the street because the street is at least 3' higher than the location of the RV. You can't block it with landscaping and this is not a precedent that you should start on this street. I built a very expensive house there and this G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 6 r✓ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES is not something that's going to look good. I would like to have it not allowed. If it goes to the next discussion, I'll have counsel contact you. Mr. Drell stated that this decision is appealable to the City Council. Mr. Haroff stated that having a wall that close to the street would not be that attractive. Angie Frank, the adjacent neighbor, was present and stated that her front door and front windows look straight into the proposed parking area for the RV. My house is above street level. The wall would have to be 17' tall to screen the RV. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she wouldn't want to look out her front door at an RV. Mr. Armstrong commented that he thought that he had fulfilled all the requirements of the ordinance. It's a positive family thing that should be an attribute. I could change this request and go back to looking at doing a landscaped garden wall in a different manner. Mr. Armstrong commented that he's invested over $200,000 in remodels and upgrades and this is the last step. Commissioner Lambell stated that perhaps the commission could come to a consensus on the wall and then the applicant could return with another plan for the RV. Commissioner Gregory commented that he doesn't like front walls that deviate from the guidelines. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the applicant rethink the front wall and the screening of the RV and come back to the commission with revised plans. Commissioner Gregory suggested talking to the neighbors first. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of the wall at 12' from the curb, 6' high above the finished grade with the grade being no higher than the curb with the precision block either plastered or painted in a color compatible to the house with a decorative precision block pattern with the landscape plan to be submitted for approval. Commissioner Vuksic withdrew this motion after hearing from the neighbors. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to the meeting of August 24, 2004 to G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES allow the applicant to work out issues with interested neighbors. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: SA 04-94 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): QUIEL BROS. SIGN CO., 272 S. I Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of two monument signs. First Centennial Plaza LOCATION: 77-900 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): C.G. DAVIS, 42-335 Washington Street, Suite F384, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 16'6" roof height for a single-family home. LOCATION: 76-871 California ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: HPD/PP 04-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDREa$j. HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST, P.O. Box 6200, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 83816-1937 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a new single-family residence in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. LOCATION: Summit Cove, Lot #4, Canyons at Bighorn ZONE: PR/HPR Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 04-39 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AGIM RADONI, 76-667 Florida Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of reduction of 9' side yard by 20%, roof height which exceeds 15' in height and a 6' high stucco block wall at front property line. LOCATION: 76-527 California ZONE: R-1 Skip Lynch, representative for the applicant, was present and stated that the applicant is proposing to build a new residence on a vacant lot. The lot is irregular in shape and they wanted to propose a more angular side rather than a straight wall. Because of the shape of the lot, they're asking for an adjustment on the side yard calculation. The wall is located 12' from the curb and then it staggers back to 14' - 15' back. The idea is not to enclose the whole property but more of creating an area for the pool. Mr. Drell stated that there has to be some compelling reason why the wall can't be put in at 15' from the curb. The reason why they need the wall is because the pool is located in the front yard. Commissioner Gregory asked about the northwest corner of the wall close to swimming pool and wondered if it would be jutting out toward the neighbor. The neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Munz, were present and commented that they're about a block from Fred Waring. California is used as a throughway to Washington which causes a lot of traffic. Pulling out of the driveway would be difficult if the wall juts out. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory stated that the pool could be designed so easily to require less yard. Mr. Drell stated that the corner of the wall could be clipped to satisfy the neighbors. Commissioner Gregory stated that there's no reason why they need a walkway all the way around the pool. They should conform to the guidelines. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) front wall at the 15' setback requirement, and (2) truncated corner at 20' from curb creating a 45' angle to improve visibility for neighboring driveway. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO.: TT 31969 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SOUTHERN SUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of architecture and landscaping for 64 single-family homes. LOCATION: Northeastern corner of Fairhaven Drive and Parkview Drive; Paseo Vista ZONE: PR-7 Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 04-41 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73- 626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 24' roof height on a two-story home. LOCATION: 74-560 Day Lily G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 10 Nowe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith stated that the site is located off of Deep Canyon and Fred Waring, across from the catholic church. More than half of the homes in this neighborhood are two-story residences. There were commitments that certain lots would not be two story and this was not one of those lots. Considering that it is two story and it exceeds 18' the commission has to look at it. Mr. Bagato stated that the code allows for a 24' roof height in this area. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there are other homes in the area with a 24' roof height. Mr. Smith stated that they're large, two-story homes. Mr. Bagato stated they did not exceed the height limit and is in conformance with the neighborhood. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that this is a big house with just 2 x 6 walls across the whole front and asked to have thicker walls on both the upper and lower stories of the front elevation. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval subject to thickening walls to 18" on both stories of the front elevation. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NEDRAC INC., c/o David Carden, 5930 Lakeshore Drive, Cypress, CA 90630 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 6,280 square foot office/warehouse building. LOCATION: 77-621 Enfield Lane ZONE: SI Mr. Smith stated that this request was before the commission at its last meeting. At that time, the commission requested that the building be stepped from 22', 26' and 30'. Bob Ricciardi, architect, was present and commented that the client needs 30' all the way across so that he can grow into the building. The second issue is that because it's a concrete tilt-up building, stepping it creates all kinds of problems with the tilt, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES especially on a very small building like this. It would raise the cost considerably. Therefore, the client would like the commission to reconsider this condition and not step the building. He would be willing to add more landscaping or add another window in the front. The cost in stepping the building would be too high. Because it's a long, narrow lot they decided to use rounded corners and then stepped the plane of the building back so that there would be some articulation. The colors are very nice as well. Commissioner Gregory asked if the building has to be 30' in height. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he needs this height for stacking of his storage units. He buys things wholesale and then sells them retail. Mr. Bagato stated that the maximum height per code is 30' so he's not exceeding the height limit. Mr. Ricciardi commented that he created some eyebrows on the front elevation to create some shade. They would be glad to add another eyebrow. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the reason why the request was made to step the building was to get more architecture. Commissioner Gregory asked how additional landscaping could be added. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he could add more mature trees or a different type of tree. Commissioner Gregory asked how much it would cost to add one step. Mr. Ricciardi stated that it might cost $15,000- $20,000. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if that's the argument that the commission accepts when making a decision like this, then anytime someone comes in and has basically a box and they're asked to make it better and then they say that it would cost more. Mr. Ricciardi commented that this building is in an area that nobody sees. It's in an industrial park and they're trying to do buildings that they can rent out and break even. Therefore, when you have a difficult lot in an area that nobody ever really sees, there should be some consideration. If it were on a busy, visible street it would be different. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the mechanical equipment would be below the top of the parapet. Mr. Ricciardi stated that there will be a 30" parapet. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that 30" won't be enough to screen the equipment. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he'll put the equipment down about 3'-4' so it'll be below the top of the top of the parapet. Commissioner Gregory stated that they could put bigger trees in without increasing the density of landscaping or increasing water usage. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval subject to (1) the applicant returning with a landscape plan showing more interesting, mature landscaping and (2) adding a third eyebrow to the street elevation. Motion carried 4- 3 with Commissioners Lambell, Vuksic and Van Vliet opposed. 2. CASE NO.: PP 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC KLEINER, 2171 India Street, # Q, San Diego, CA 92101 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a 2,100 square foot office building and an 11,500 square foot warehouse. Intertile, Natural Stone Surfaces. LOCATION: 74-842 42Id Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that the architect has submitted revised plans for the commission to review. Eric Kleiner, architect, was present and stated that the previous front building had a stucco face and stone base with small windows and it didn't relate to the back building. The massing of the two buildings has changed so that the two buildings tie together architecturally and the materials are more unified. The roof pitch has changed to match the upper building. The breeze way between the two buildings was a very important part of the project. Corrugated translucent material will be used, keeping the breeze way open and screen the interior of the buildings from the street. The buildings will have an industrial feel and will incorporate nocce stone slabs or they could use smaller tiles. A steel trellis has been created in the garden area to support landscaping. Full height grid work has been added to soften the bays between the large doors. There's still a roof screening issue. There are three large swamp coolers that need to go on one side and then three more need to go on the back. An eyebrow-type element has been added to the roof to screen the equipment. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the dormer was large enough to screen three swamp coolers. Mr. Kleiner stated that they will fit inside the dormer. Commissioner Hanson stated that she noticed that there was a difference between the section and the rendering. It showed quite a span between the translucent members and the top of the roof of the GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 13 r.r►` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES large building versus the section which shows a very small span. Mr. Kliener stated that he did a very quick sketch so it isn't right. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if the purpose of this presentation was to make sure that they're on the same wave length. Mr. Kleiner stated that he was looking for input. Commissioner Hanson stated that she felt like the project has come a long way. However, the dormer on the roof is not attractive. It was suggested to put the equipment on the ground. The idea of the slab stone on the facade is dramatic. Mr. Kleiner wanted assurance from the commission that they like the massing of the buildings. He wanted to come back to the commission with revised plans showing that the roof screen issues have been resolved. Commissioner Hanson stated that the one thing that the applicant should really pay attention to the details of how the panels integrate into the walls. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the architect has done a great job and the revised plans are very innovative. Commissioner Lambell concurred. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request with the understanding that the applicant is going in the right direction in regards to the architecture. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 04-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS RANCHO MIRAGE BUILDERS, INC., 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite 4, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of revised plans for a 1,820 square foot office building. LOCATION: 44-875 San Jacinto Avenue. ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the architect was unavailable but would like the commission to comment on the proposed office building. There will be a 5' or 6' wall, similar to the wall on the east side. It's a fairly low-profile building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 14 N-00 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 27, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant has the ability to move the building forward just a little bit because it doesn't look like there's going to be that much room between the wall and the building. Mr. Smith stated that part of the application includes a setback variance to reduce the required setback from 15' to 5'. We feel the findings for the variance can be justified based on the fact that the City is taking 20% of the lot for street widening. It could possibly be moved a little further west. Commissioner Lopez asked if they're going to have on-sight drainage. Mr. Smith stated that there was a drainage plan based on the original plan but they haven't proceeded with it until they move forward in the approval process. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the roof access. Mr. Smith stated that there is a loft with an outdoor deck that can be used as a roof access. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the roof plans shows that the drainage goes off the fascias, which will be hard to maintain. Mr. Smith commented that the building is 1,800 square feet and must abide by residential standards. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for preliminary approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040727.MIN 15