Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-28 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES (Revised pg 12-15) April 28, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 7 1 Chris Van Vliet X 7 1 John Vuksic X 8 Karel Lambell X 8 Pam Touschner X 6 2 Allan Levin X 3 1 Vacancy Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 14, 2009 meeting minutes to be approved at next meeting. V. CASES: fir► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-176 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to co- locate six panel antennas to existing monopalm. LOCATION: 77-820 California Drive ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this is an existing monopalm located in Palm Desert Country Club in the park area. They are saving six panel antennas to the monopalm along with four outdoor cabinets. The location was reviewed by staff and stated that the palm fronds are in good shape and staff is recommending approval to add the six antennas. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 09-178 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41945 Boardwalk Suite L, Palm Desert CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval a monument sign. LOCATION: 74-710 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 NSP Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that the staff report does recommend denial because of the design of the landscape plan and this may need to be continued. Staff has heard from the Engineering Department that they wanted the sign on the other side of the sidewalk, which would create a problem to the applicant. The applicant did get an easement from CVWD to put a utility there, GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009AR090428min revised.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 so it is something that will have to be worked out internally. He stated that the design is better and staff doesn't have a problem with that, but there are still concerns with the location. Mr. Addington stated that the owner has spent a lot of time and money to get the easement permit from CVWD and would like to have it on that side of the sidewalk. Mr. Chad Addington, representative, stated that they are no longer proposing a free standing monument sign and he submitted updated photos of their proposal. The drawings were revised to something that is more architecturally fitting to the city than initially proposed. This is a non-illuminated sign cabinet which will give the buildings some visibility from off Highway 111. He was initially told when he came out here that the area was fine but they needed an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which he has pulled. Commissioner Gregory stated that he and Commissioner Vuksic have a conflict as investors with Desert Commercial Bank and said that they would have to recuse themselves. Mr. Bagato stated that the case would have to be continued because there was a lack of quorum. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant could get some direction from the landscape specialist with regards to the landscape issues and what could be done to allow the sign in the right of way. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that the sign will be impacted by irrigation, so irrigation would have to be reconfigured and the grass probably pulled away from the sign to minimize the impact on the monument. She recommended that they submit a landscape plan for review. Mr. Addington asked for suggestions on what type of landscape they should be putting around the sign. Ms. Hollinger stated that they could do zeroscape, gravel, or cobble; just something to keep water away from the sign. She also mentioned that the irrigation would have to be relocated so that the turf doesn't die. Commissioner Van Vliet had a concern about the height of the sign and stated that it seems to add more clutter and pointed out that the sign is 96 inches tall and 84 inches wide; it's just too big. Commissioner Lambell asked if there is a line of sight issue. Mr. Addington stated that upon exiting the center, it is a right turn only GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 with a median right across from that entrance. Commissioner Lambell felt that with such a large sign there would be visibility issues. Mr. Addington asked what size the Commission recommends and Mr. Bagato stated that six feet is the max. The Commission did not take action due to a lack of quorum. ACTION: No action was taken due to lack of quorum. 3. CASE NO: SA 09-184 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of two wall signs; Lumber Liquidators LOCATION: 73-806 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of two new wall signs for Lumber Liquidators. The building is 72 feet by 72 feet. Wall sign A is proposed on the east side of the building facing the interior parking lot of the office/industrial business park. Wall sign B is proposed on the north elevation of the building facing Interstate 10. The property is located on the north side of Dinah Shore Drive and is in the back of an existing office/industrial business park with frontage facing Interstate 10. This building is one of three that has freeway frontage in the office/industrial business park. Sign A is 30.76 inches by 96 inches totaling 20.5 square feet. The sign will be non-illuminated and constructed of 1/4 inch black acrylic and 3- inch foam with painted yellow letters. The sign includes the business name "Lumber Liquidators" as well as a secondary sign "Hardwood Flooring for Less" underneath the business name. Sign B is 51 inches by 170 inches totaling 60.2 square feet. The sign will be an illuminated 5-inch light box with a black retainer and routed out letters. The sign includes the business name "Lumber Liquidators" as well as a secondary sign "Hardwood Flooring for Less" underneath the business name. The sign is designed so the black box area does not illuminate, and the routed out letters illuminate through a yellow acrylic face. G1P1anning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\200TAROW928min revised.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Mr. Bagato explained that the City Council directed staff to come up with modifications to freeway signage because the signs on the freeway are becoming too cluttered and visually unappealing to the city. The new sign ordinance reviewed at the last meeting would require 50% reduction on wall sign B; which would be 30 square feet and non-illuminated. Mr. Bagato stated that he informed the applicant of the new sign ordinance. His recommendation to the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) would be to deny the signs as proposed, and that the applicant may resubmit the plans to staff consistent with the proposed signage ordinance for review and approval. He stated that under the current code this could technically be approved based on square footage and the design could be evaluated based on the architectural vocabulary of the building. Staff feels Sign A is fine and is non-illuminated. Ed Landen, sign representative stated that this is a very large reputable company wanting to move into Palm Desert. They have 160 locations across the nation and their buildings have the registered logo as presented and some are even larger than what is being proposed. He mentioned that he tried to follow a little bit of the new guidelines, but said that this still falls into the existing sign ordinance. He stated that the letters on the back side of the building are 16 inches tall so viewed from the freeway they are not that large. Mr. Bagato stated that the measurement is three feet on either side of that elevation at 60 square feet. Mr. Landen stated that it fits on the building quite well. Commissioner Gregory asked if this conforms to the current ordinance as far as maximum signage square footage. Mr. Bagato indicated that was correct and said that this is a single tenant building not a multi tenant building and they are allowed 50% reduction; so it will be 30 square feet larger than the new code. Commissioner Gregory asked if the new sign ordinance had been enacted yet and should they look at this with respect to the current code. Mr. Bagato said that this wasn't under the new sign ordinance and the Commission will have to review it under the current code. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had an issue with wall sign B. After reviewing wall sign A he noticed that there is a little more comfort factor there as far as the surround around the writing. Mr. Landen stated that he could provide a little more black space. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090428min revised.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *male MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet expressed his dislike for the sign and stated that he didn't like signs on the freeway because they add clutter. He did not like the yellow color which will really be visible at night and didn't like the fact that it is a can sign. Commissioner Lambell asked if under the current ordinance the fluorescent sign would be approved. Mr. Bagato answered that under the current code there are no restrictions about it being illuminated. Commissioner Gregory was wondering about the visibility from the freeway and said philosophically does it really matter what direction the sign is seen from. If it conforms to our current size limits and everything else that we dictate can they do something different. As a business they want to be seen. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that all the buildings typically don't have as much architecture in the back as they do in the front and they are more linear so the signs look worse in the back. He said that if it looked better he would be more apt to vote for it. Commissioner Lambell stated that the size of Sign A would be great in Sign B's location since it is considerably smaller, square footage wise. She had problems with the size, it being a can and fluorescent lit. Mr. Landen stated that if the sign was smaller it will really not be noticeable from the freeway. Mr. Alan Waters, applicant asked if they could move this sign down to the third section of the building. Commissioner Lambell said that occurred to them however, there is a bump up there in the height of the building. Mr. Landen agreed and said that it is raised a little higher in the front on that side. Commissioner Vuksic stated that moving it to the right gives it a larger field for it to sit in. That way the tower element wouldn't become a backdrop for a sign. Mr. Landen stated that the back area is 31 feet wide and the front is 20 feet wide. Mr. Bagato still recommended going with smaller letters so there is more black area; maybe 14 inch letters. Mr. Landen asked if they could make the can a little bigger because the way the building is designed they will be setting the sign back another ten feet from the freeway. Mr. Bagato stated that there is about two square feet to work with. Commissioner Lambell asked if they could get rid of the can sign all together. Mr. Waters thought that they had to do a can sign. Mr. Bagato thought it would be fine because they were trying to keep the black and yellow colors. He then said that there was a way to design the yellow letters on a non-illuminated black background using straight metal with routed out letters coming off the metal. He GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 explained that there are signs with metal backgrounds with letters in front that have the neon behind where only the letters light up. Mr. Landen stated that there is push through, but it will still have to be a can to light it. Commissioner Gregory stated that for a can sign, this one wasn't bad because it has a shape to it. The Commission and the applicant discussed this design option. Commissioner Vuksic expressed his concerned about the yellow letters at night and made a suggestion on how to get the same look doing it in a way that would be more palatable. He stated that the letters would be raised off of that black surface and back lit so at night there would be a halo-lit letter instead of a yellow letter. This will be a good size sign with yellow letters during the day and at night it will be softer. Mr. Waters asked for clarification. Mr. Bagato explained that the letter itself won't light up; there will be a white glow behind the letter illuminating it like a halo effect. There will be some lighting but you won't have the yellow light through it. Mr. Waters asked if someone driving by could clearly read "Lumber Liquidators" and Mr. Bagato answered yes. Mr. Waters stated that they want to be in Palm Desert. He explained that this is a national advertised company and people drive three hours to shop at their store. He discussed the success of their company and said that they will be using a local sign company, local brokers and local contractors and they want a sign that people will see. Commissioner Vuksic said that they understand the importance of signage and said that there is a special consideration for a single user tenant on a building. It is one thing when you have multiple signs all over a building which can really get out of hand, but this is just one tenant. He thought what the Commission was proposing would give them what they want and it would be a tasteful sign. The Commission and the applicant discussed halo-lit letters and the design of the sign. Mr. Brian Hale, property owner stated that Lumber Liquidators is a nationally recognized account and a nationally recognized sign and without them this is a deal breaker and felt that everyone could lose. He felt that a conservative $750,000 of tax revenue in their seven year lease would be important to the City of Palm Desert. He expressed his appreciation of the Commission's consideration. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR0W428min revised.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval subject to 1) moving sign B to the west surface on the rear elevation; 2) sign B to have a flat black background with raised halo lit yellow letters; 3) reduce letters slightly on sign B to fit within the black background matching the letter proportion of sign A; and 4) changes reviewed by staff. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 09-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINE CANVAS, 69- 640 Sugarloaf Ave, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new awning and signage; Grower's Market. LOCATION: 73-196 Highway 111 ZONE: CA SP Mr. Swartz summarized the project and stated that this was continued from a previous meeting. At that meeting, the applicant submitted a black awning and three signs. There was some discussion that the black awning looked too dark; it fits for a lounge, but not a market. Also discussed was the color of the building. At present, the owner has painted the building a Pot of Cream color, beefed up the pilasters and added wood sidings. Mr. Ernie Banks, sign representative asked if the Commission would approve the forest green awning color. Mr. Swartz passed around samples of the awning color. The Commission reviewed and discussed the color. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how tall the awning was and would it screen the A/C units. Mr. Banks stated that it was originally 38 inches but at the last meeting some conversation came up about hiding the A/C units located on the roof. He went out and measured and is now proposing an awning that is 54 inches tall with returns every six feet to stabilize. He said that there will be about 39 inches of awning above the roofline. GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\2009 AR090428min revised.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 The Commission discussed the color selection and locations of the signs. Mr. Swartz stated that the signs are at ten-inch letters. One of the signs is in the middle directly over the door and the other one is crammed all the way over to the edge of the awning and staff is making the recommendation that they center the signs. Mr. Banks clarified that he would place a sign where the roundness is on the east side and on the south side. Mr. Swartz stated that the signs are also in the border and asked if they need to be there. Mr. Banks stated that they were not doing the white border. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he may have to abstain from this case because he was hired to do a design that was not implemented for this property but for which he was paid. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development suggested that the Commission take a vote today and she would check with the City Attorney to make sure that Commissioner Vuksic should have abstained. She indicated that the motion should read, "approved pending confirmation by the City Attorney that there is no conflict of interest. In the event that there is a conflict of interest the move is to continue." Ms. Aylaian asked Commissioner Vuksic to clearly state for the record what services he performed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that his role with the property owner was to provide a fagade enhancement design for which he was paid. His design was not used and he does not stand to benefit financially from this decision. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to granted approval of awning color change to forest green with Growers Market lettering to be equally spaced on the awning without any border around Growers Market and subject to staff approval. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. Motion approved pending confirmation by the City Attorney that there is no conflict of interest. In the event that there is a conflict of interest the move is to continue. [Subsequent to the meeting, the City Attorney confirmed that Commissioner Vuksic had no conflict of interest.] GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 5. CASE NO: CUP 09-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH, 42-695 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an addition to the first floor and the addition of a new second floor to the existing multi-purpose room; St. John's Lutheran Church. LOCATION: 42-695 Washington Street ZONE: OP Mr. Swartz summarized the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of an Amendment to existing Conditional Use Permit 98-10 to allow an expansion to the first floor and addition of a second story over the existing multi- purpose room. St. John's Lutheran Church is located on the west side of Washington Street, north of Fred Waring Drive, and south of Avenue of the States. The church sits on a 1.5 acre parcel, zoned Office Professional. The site is located between "The Learning Tree School" to the north and the "Top Stop Preschool" to the south. The church was constructed in the 1960's under the County of Riverside's Jurisdiction. As part of Annexation #29, the City annexed this area in April of 1994. The existing site consists of a 4,285 square foot church building, which includes 1,700 square feet of seating area and 930 square feet of alter area. The site also has a 1,376 square foot office and storage building. The existing multi- purpose room is 3,600 square feet. The applicant is proposing to add an additional 656 square feet totaling the first floor at 4,256 square feet. The proposed second floor addition to the existing multi-purpose room is 4,900 square feet totaling the building at 9,156 square feet. The building use will serve as an office, music room, and fellowship hall. The addition is needed to create more offices and during the peak season, (November to April), St. John's Church provides three, one-hour services on Sunday's between the hours of 8am and 12pm. The architecture of the building has modern style in a blend of desert stucco colors to match the existing buildings. The height of the proposed building is varied among elements, but the highest point on the building measures 24'-6" with a four foot parapet. The architectural form of the GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\200TAR090428min revised.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 building illustrates a modern design that matches the existing church. Building height is consistent with the general overall approval received for this site. Mr. Swartz presented photos of the church and the sanctuary. Commissioner Vuksic asked the architect how the new building ties into the existing sanctuary architecturally. Mr. Mark Valentine, architect stated not much at all. It was supposed to tie into the existing offices to separate the workings of the church from the sanctuary itself. The Commission and the architect reviewed and discussed the plans. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this really needs to tie in somehow with the sanctuary. The sanctuary is nicely done and very tasteful and it is tough to imagine building a substantial building like this that will be quite visible and not tie into the sanctuary. Mr. Valentine stated that in the first go around before they showed him that they already had a design like this, he did something similar to this over the front half and went flat roof on the back. When you looked at it from the street it had the same type of angle to it, but we lost a lot of it in the height and made it detrimental to the use of the building; we were down to eight foot ceilings and it got scraped. Commissioner Vuksic stated that even though it is in the back it's going to be quite visible especially from The Learning Tree. He thought the architect needed to meditate on this and really try to pick up the architectural features of the sanctuary and somehow relate to them. He knows it is a challenge because they don't want to lose the square footage. Maybe there is a way to add some other elements out beyond the basic box to help accomplish that. Maybe it is a little too much square footage for the space that they have available and they need to think about where you can carve away at it a little bit for the sake of architecture. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and said they will probably have to take it down and start over again and they probably wouldn't be able to use any of the existing footings. Mr. Valentine stated that they would use new footings. Commissioner Gregory understood that this is a very expensive way to go and was curious about leveling the building and starting over. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR0W428min revised.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet also agreed that it needs to tie into the architecture because there is some neat architecture on the sanctuary building; a nice roof angle, nice use of block work and offsets. It is really just a big box right now and devoid of architecture. Commissioner Gregory stated that the roof angle is a very shallow pitch and it might be possible if they weren't forced by the existing conditions to get a pitched roof. Commissioner Lambell stated that the Commission didn't have any problems with the sanctuary building; it is tying the two bits together. The two structures need to come together as one. Commissioner Vuksic stated to the architect to pick up on the ascent of the architecture. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist and the architect discussed the landscape plans. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case CUP 09-14 subject to: 1) tying in the architectural features of the sanctuary; 2) consider adding other elements out beyond the basic box; and 3) landscape plans to be reviewed by the Landscape Specialist Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. 6. CASE NO: RV 09-175 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD MACIAG, 73340 San Nicholas Avenue, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a RV in the front yard. LOCATION: 73-340 San Nicholas Avenue ZONE: R-2 (7) Mr. Swartz presented this project and stated that the applicant is proposing to park an Recreational Vehicle (RV) in the front yard as there is no room for it in the rear or on the side of the house. The RV is 10 feet high, 9 feet wide and 24 feet in length. There is an existing six-foot wall that steps down to five feet to four feet and is where the RV would be located. The applicant is proposing a six- foot high gate sixteen feet back from the street and tied into a four- foot wall. The house from the curb is 44 feet and the RV is 24 feet in length so the RV would still be about 20 feet from the RV to the street. The applicant is not proposing to put any landscaping as GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090428min revised.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 there are currently three palm trees in that area. He stated that this was noticed and has received no comments in favor of or in opposition. He asked if there was anyone in attendance in favor or opposition and none was noted. Staff is concerned that the RV is directly in front with no possible way to screen it. Mr. Richard Maciag, applicant stated that there are three palm trees in front and they could possibly add a few scrubs there to help screen it. He stated that he didn't know how to hide an RV and asked for ideas. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager of Code Compliance if anything has happened with the effort to screen RVs. Mr. Ponder said that they have checked with other jurisdictions and they are as vague as our code. Mr. Bagato stated that staff is researching this issue and will go to the City Council and recommend initiation of a change. Commissioner Gregory stated that until we get better guidelines we are in a state of limbo where it is very subjective. Right now the ordinance states that the RV must be substantially screened from viewed. So the Commission tries to look at this to take the sting off because the RVs are right there in your face. These large vehicles do impact somebody whether it's your neighbor or someone driving by because essentially it is a house extension. Mr. Maciag stated that if he thought he was set back far enough from the street so that it's not up close to the street. Mr. Swartz asked if they would have a driveway for the RV. Mr. Maciag stated that they wouldn't be removing the curb but they would use a ramp. Mrs. Maciag stated that it would be behind the five-foot part of the wall leaving enough room where the RV would be hidden. She mentioned that they have discussed putting big planters with hibiscus or ficus in moveable pots to cover the RV. Mr. Bagato read Chapter 8.450, Permitted and non-permitted uses of recreational vehicles. "the architectural review commission, may approve and issue a permit to park a vehicle in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard- surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots, lot(s) and the public street(s)." Mr. Bagato pointed out that the gravel being proposed is another issue because typically that is not an approved hard surface. They are also asking for a gate six feet high fifteen feet from the curb that is an exception from the fence because a six-foot high gate has to be twenty feet back. It is not just the RV they are looking at because the applicant is trying to put a lot in the front. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090428min revised.doc Page 13 of 15 *Mi r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet didn't understand how they could screen it with the amount of room they have and said that it is really difficult to screen it on any lot unless it is a huge lot. He pointed out that there isn't enough room on the side yard to screen it and only a couple of feet between the RV and the four or five foot high fence, even though it steps down you will still see it from the side yard. Mr. Maciag stated that he drove around Palm Desert looking for examples and saw plenty of RVs with four-foot high fences around them with at least six or eight feet sticking up and none of them were disguised. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't know if those were approved through this Commission or they were put through illegally. Commissioner Gregory stated that applicants come in for approval and it's a problem with this fuzzy type of rule. Mr. Ponder stated that Code is going through the different areas and determining who has been approved and who hasn't and taking it to Planning and making the applicant go through this same process. Commissioner Gregory stated that the screening to cover an RV would be very big. For example, the vehicle is ten feet tall so the screening would have to be eight feet tall or more. Mrs. Maciag stated that they thought of a circular driveway to park the RV there behind the palm trees as well as other growth. Mr. Bagato stated he was concerned with setting precedence with people turning the front of their house into screening for RVs. Commissioner Gregory stated that it is a very rare situation where these things work well because most front yards are really something that produces an environment for the street that makes the place we live in nice. He said that they are dealing with a situation where it was never intended to have an RV parked there. If it were developed that way in the first place where there is a side yard that would work much more easily. Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission would be consulted by the City Council as far as coming up with ideas to make approving RVs a little more structured so they are not relying on verbiage. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development thought that the City Council would look to the Commission for suggestions and ideas because the Commission deals with it more than they do. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090428min revised.doc Page 14 of 15 Now ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 28, 2009 Commissioner Lambell stated that the applicants have a beautiful front yard and the home would be obliterated by the RV being parked in the front and made a motion for denial. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to deny case RV 09-175. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. 7. CASE NO: MISC 09-147 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new commercial building and landscape; Parcel 8 at the Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-987 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ ACTION: No action was taken due to lack of quorum. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-02, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. TONY B GAT PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20MAR090428min revised.doc Page 15 of 15