Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-10 . rrrr CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 **************************************************************************************************** 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 18 3 Kristi Hanson X 18 3 Richard O'Donnell X 10 11 Chris Van Vliet X 20 1 John Vuksic X 19 2 Ray Lopez X 19 2 Karen Oppenheim X 11 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 28, 2003 Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of October 28, 2003. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 03-138 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SURESH SHAH, 40-530 Morningstar Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised building identification monument signs for Morningstar Plaza. LOCATION: 73-733 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has returned with revised plans for two monument signs. Mr. Urbina stated that the ARC had continued this request so that the monument signs could be re-designed so that some of the materials reflected the materials used on the building, which has been done. The overall height of the sign is 6'. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the material used on the part of the sign that's not brick. Mr. Urbina stated that it will be a simulated stucco finish. Commissioner Hanson asked about the code for the height of monument signs. Mr. Urbina stated that it's 6' for the sign area portion but we could allow monument signs at 12' in height including the decorative material on top of the copy portion of the sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that the tenant signs are internally illuminated and wondered if the whole sign will light up and not just the letters. Mr. Shah stated that only the letters will be lit up. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how many tenants are in the building. Mr. Shah stated that he has twelve tenants, but will only allow three tenants on the monument signs. The same three tenants will be on both signs. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he was concerned about the need to even have the tenants listed on the signs. They're only proposing having three tenants listed on the monument signs. Commissioner Gregory commented that it's hard to see the signs on the sides of the building because the trees have grown up in front of them. The first time he went to the Keith Companies he had a hard time finding them. The problem of having the signage on the wall G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AGENDA of the building is that with landscaping there for a different purpose, it ends up potentially obscuring the signage. Having a monument sign would be a good idea in this case. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he's trying to imagine what it'll look like if they have names like the Keith Companies where it says "tenant". He asked the applicant how it would work if the tenant requires two lines to get their name on the sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that they would have to stay within the size of the box and Mr. Shah concurred. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to having only the letters illuminated on the tenant signs. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 03-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROB SHEARER, 8 Cholla Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of roof height of 17'6" on a single family home. LOCATION: 44-818 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant was not present. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to continue the request to allow the applicant to be present. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 3. CASE NO.: SA 03-159 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RORY WOOD, 12992 Trail View Lane, Chino Hills, CA 91709-1015 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage on awning. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AGENDA LOCATION: 73-260 El Paseo, Suite 3A, Legends Celebrity Memorabilia ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 03-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TIM BUENZLI, 463 Desert Falls Drive North, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 18' roof height on a single family residence. LOCATION: 38-770 Desert Mirage Drive ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Urbina stated that he went to the site and didn't see any other flat- roof homes. The other homes all had tile roofs. In this case, the applicant is proposing a flat roof home. He asked the applicant if there was a specific reason why he's proposing a flat roof versus a pitched, tile roof. Mr. Tim Buenzli, applicant, commented that he prefers a flat roof and likes the style of it. His proposal includes a daylight basement so he's raising the pad. If he put a pitched, tile roof on the home it would exceed 18' in height. Mr. Drell stated that the issue is how high the flat roof has to be or the variations in the various elements of the building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he noticed that it looks like you're stepping up quite a bit to get to the house. Mr. Buenzli stated that it's approximately 3' up from the basement. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the garage is about 3' below the house. Mr. Buenzli stated that the garage is about 2'/2' below the house with a step up to the house from the garage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it looks like it would be possible to lower the garage element. Right now, they've taken a line that goes over the entry of the home and have taken it out over the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 4 +, *Moe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AGENDA entire garage near the front of the street at the same height, which is pretty high. He asked the applicant if the garage element could be lowered so that they have more stepping of the parapets. Commissioner Hanson stated that the amount of white space above the garage is quite excessive compared to what you would normally see. Mr. Buenzli stated that he was expecting the garage to have a 9' ceiling. The swamp coolers will be roof mounted. Commissioner Hanson stated that they won't be screened by the parapet because it's shown at 2' in height. That's not tall enough. Swamp coolers are typically 36"-42" in height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the swamp coolers will be sticking up a couple of feet above the parapet. Commissioner Hanson commented that the height of the unit could be 24" but it sits on top of a curb which can vary in height from 6"-8" plus the roof is sloped so if it's up by the higher portion, he'll have some issues hiding the equipment. Mr. Drell stated that typically when you put something on the roof you have to create some part of the roof that's a little bit lower. Some part of the roof will have an 8' plate, such as a hallway, and that's where you put your rooftop equipment. Commissioner Hanson stated that the sides of the parapet should lower down to 15' or less, which makes the middle more prominent. It won't change the plans that much but will drop the plate lines slightly. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the swamp cooler needs to be addressed. It will be very visible. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if the swamp cooler has to go on the roof or could it be mounted on the ground. Commissioner Lopez commented that he had a swamp cooler on the ground on the north side of his home and it was great because it was shaded. Mr. Buenzli commented that he could drop the roof height over the closet to 8'. There would be no problem dropping the garage element. Commissioner Hanson reminded the applicant that he'll need at least 42" from the top of the roof to the parapet in order to screen the equipment. Mr. Buenzli stated that he doesn't want anything to be seen. There's also going to be a deck on the roof so you'll see people up there occasionally. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the architect for the project prepare an elevation and roof plan. Show the ARC in a sketch form what you propose to do. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to submit revised G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AGENDA elevations and roof plan showing (1) the garage element being lowered, (2) 15' parapet height on sides, and (3) 42" depth from roof deck to top of parapet to screen rooftop equipment. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 03-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THEODORE R. NICOLAY, 44-630 San Clemente, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of a 6' garden wall 7' from the curb. LOCATION: 44-630 San Clemente Circle ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion subject to adding landscaping along outside of wall. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 03-43 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHOICE ENTERPRISE, 74-925 Highway 111, Suite 14, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of final approval of a four-unit apartment complex. LOCATION: 73-765 Shadow Mountain Drive ZONE: R-3 Mr. Bagato stated that Mr. Urbina spoke to the applicant who told him that he didn't want to do the recessed windows at first, which is why it was added to the agenda. However, the applicant decided to go ahead with the recessed windows, therefore, the request has been withdrawn. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 AGENDA Action: This request was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. 7. CASE NO.: MISC 03-48 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM LIBBY, 74-056 Aster Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of detached storage shed. LOCATION: 74-056 Aster Drive ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Bagato stated that he went to the site because in the photo, the shed looked a lot closer than 8' to the property line. Mr. Libby, applicant, was not present. The shed is actually 4'10" away from the property line. In order for the shed to comply with the setback and height requirements, the applicant would have to move the shed back 2'6" and cut it down to 8' in height. The shed is used for storage and will have a stucco finish to match the house. The applicant told Mr. Bagato that the wall is one foot off the property line so even giving him the benefit of a doubt, he still would have to move the shed 2'6" feet. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to (1) move shed away from the property line an additional 2'6" to comply with the setback requirement, and (2) reduce height of shed to 8'. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 03-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STAN & MICHELLE SMITH, 72-796 Willow Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to park RV in side yard of single family residence. LOCATION: 72-796 Willow G:PlanningTonna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant was not present and suggested that the request be continued. Commissioner Gregory asked if any changes had been made since it was last seen by the ARC. Mr. Urbina stated that no changes had been made from the previous submittal. A picture of the proposed gate was shown to the commission. The two proposed gates would be 8' x 8' and would be made of wrought iron with a solid metal backing. Commissioner Hanson stated that the proposed area to store the RV is too visible. It's an improper place to put it. The applicant has been given two opportunities to be here. Commissioner Vuksic commented that a letter from the neighbor isn't sufficient because it really affects anyone who drives around there. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to deny the request because the proposed storage area is in a very visible location and it would be difficult to screen an RV of this size. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 03-49 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARLON CHANEY & ASSOCIATES, 255 N. El Cielo Road, #128, Palm Springs, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of garden entry wall for a single family residence. LOCATION: 72-916 Skyward Way ZONE: R-1 10,000 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion subject to applicant submitting a landscape plan. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. B. Preliminary Plans G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES 1. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 03-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD SHRUGGED, LLC, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for a two-building center consisting of a Wendy's fast food restaurant with drive-through and a proposed future sit-down restaurant. LOCATION: 78-078 Country Club, northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. ZONE: C1 Mr. Bagato stated that this item was previously before the commission. The applicant has returned with plans that show significant changes. They have tried to match some of the other buildings in the area. Computer simulations were displayed for the commission to review. Commissioner Hanson stated that one thing that she doesn't like is parapets that don't tie back to anything. She commented that she was generally okay with everything subject to one little addition that they could make on the south side and the issues of view lines for equipment. Mr. Drell stated that the drive through is on the south side which is on the Country Club elevation. It's not an architectural problem, but it is a site planning problem. Drive throughs have to have something "special" about them. They have to go above and beyond, design-wise, to meet the standards of the City. Commissioner Vuksic stated that his first impression was that the building looked awfully close to the street on Country Club. There's not a lot of planting area left between the drive through and the service side of the building. Craig Smith, applicant, stated that one thing to keep in mind about this site is that there's a difference in the elevation to what's at grade. The grade differentiation between the hard corner where the drive through is located is 8' or 9'. Mr. Drell stated that the issue is with the Country Club elevation. If the building is that close to the street, it should have far better architecture and should look more like a front. It G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES looks like a dressed up rear end and not a front in addition to being the aisle of the drive through. Commissioner Gregory commented that in order to help the applicant, they should be as clear as possible. What Mr. Drell was trying to say earlier was that we're looking for extra effort. Right now we clearly have a situation where the edges of the envelope are being pushed because they're proposing a fair amount of "stuff' in a small place. We, who have some trouble with drive throughs, and see only approximately 16' of setback from the curb face of which 8' is sidewalk, leaving only 8' of landscaping behind something that we don't like. Right there, we have a conflict. We're talking about wanting to have some type of trellis work on the south side, which isn't indicated on the plans. John Tarlos, Wendy's architect, and Rick Finkel, site architect, were present to answer questions. Mr. Craig Smith stated that they were in a tough spot the last time trying to speak on behalf of Wendy's, which is why Mr. Tarlos was present at this meeting. All of the previous comments made by the commission were given to Mr. Tarlos. When it comes to a "special" element, they had talked about a really nice outdoor covered dining area. Mr. Drell commented that the most visible part of the building has both the greatest negative in some people's perception and the least amount of positive architecture to overcome it. The tower element is spoiled by the two service doors. Commissioner Hanson suggested adding a series of palm trees in front of the blank stucco face. They do have a planter area that appears to be a fairly good size so they could have some vertical elements that would break up the stucco face. If the doors were painted a dark brown that match the rock and add awnings, which would give them a shadow line. It would make the doors go away. Mr. Finkel stated that this is problematic because the back of the building is where the kitchen is located. They can't add windows or have a lot of variations in and out because there are long lines of equipment against those walls. He understands that they need to dress this area up. They've tried to break up the parapet, add light fixtures, stone elements, wainscotting, etc... What they're looking for is creating more ins and outs with the walls and windows. They don't have a lot of latitude to do a lot with the architecture itself. The wall is going to be a windowless, fairly long wall. Mr. Drell commented that he had suggested changing the site plan but the applicant seems to be resisting. When you're backing up a building to the primary public view, it creates a problem. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110NIN 10 yam, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES Mr. Tarlos stated that they could push the building back 7' by cutting out the patio in the front, but could probably create another patio in the back. Commissioner Gregory stated that as "unfun" as it is hearing it, it's better to hear it now as opposed to us saying that it's okay and then they get beaten up later. We're actually saving you a lot of grief. Mr. Craig Smith commented that this is very productive and appreciates the comments. He has to alter the plan in such a way that is more palatable. The problem with the project in general is the elevation along Country Club and how close it is to the street as well as the lack of landscaping. The suggestions that he's heard include increasing the landscaping, move the building further from the street and create something architecturally on the south side that is sexier. Mr. Drell commented that it should look more like a front and not like a dressed up back. Mr. Finkel stated that there was also a suggestion to create another trellis element over the drive through, which creates a foreground element that can be landscaped and it softens the view between the street and the building. It also adds a little more interest to the rear of the building and screens the back equipment doors. Commissioner Gregory stated that the trellis would also prevent people from "frying" in the sun. Commissioner Hanson asked if one of the solutions was flipping the site plan. Mr. Tarlos stated that the pick-up window would be on the passenger side of the vehicle. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant was going to put up some type of guard rail or have a wall continue higher to provide safety on the slope. Mr. Craig Smith stated that they would have to build a wall high enough to address that situation, however high it is determined to be by the City. Mr. Finkel stated that they've already talked to their landscape architect about doing a continuous shrub row with a guard rail right up against the shrub row. From the street, you wouldn't see a guard rail. Mr. Drell stated that they should've show cars in the drive through to see how well they would be screened. Mr. Finkel commented that you wouldn't see them. You would just barely be seeing the top of a car. Commissioner Hanson stated that the parapet walls on top of roofs that you can see the ends of them and they don't go anywhere. They don't die into another wall. They're just sort of sticking out there. They're going to have that issue here. That sort of thing is offensive looking. They need to wrap around to complete the architectural treatment. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's always been amazed at how tall these small restaurant buildings are. They look like you're in a funny house and you're looking through a mirror that stretching the buildings vertically. There's a situation with Washington Street where you can see the roof. What they should think about doing is introducing some other screening elements to screen the roof-mounted equipment because the parapets aren't going to do it when you're coming into town. You're going to be looking at the roof and the equipment. They should consider adding another tier of architecture where they're screening the equipment which will give them the opportunity to lower the parapets at the faces of the buildings because you will no longer be relying on them to do that. Mr. Craig Smith commented that he could see how a nice trellis added to the corner of the building would go a long way to really dress up that area. They could also move the building back and increase the landscaping. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was wondering if they were trying to do too many things in such a small space. Mr. Drell suggested that their plan has to meet the City's minimum landscape requirements. The parking lot looks very bare. The requirement in this zone is double the landscaping and 15% of parking lot has to be landscaped. Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant has to do something extra special. What that means is doing something more than adding bolt-ons, i.e. a bolt-on trellis, hedges, etc... It has to be something where the intrinsic design is darn good and makes the City Council happy. Mr. Craig Smith stated that they could dress up the rear elevation of the building, add an awning, add a trellis to the end and move the building further back. This is the direction that they're going to move in. Originally, none of the site issues were addressed at the first meeting. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they were addressed at the first meeting. Mr. Drell stated that staff has been advocating a totally different site approach from day one. We've been told that this is the only way that it can be done. They'll have to give themselves more room to do it. They still have a long way to go. They will probably have to physically expand the site to overcome the handicap of having both the back end of the building and the drive through the most visible public face of the project. They're probably need 30' of landscaping along Country Club. Commissioner Vuksic commented that some of the stone looks like its applied in a very token way, especially the wainscot. They have a 3' wainscot going all the way around the entire building with a standard little cap on top of it, which could apply to any style of architecture. They have a potential for a very nice desert contemporary type of G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES building. They should think more about the application of the stone. He suggested using a furred out element that's a darker color plaster and forget the stone because it looks very token. Commissioner Hanson suggested making the trellis columns all stone, as opposed to wainscot so they look like an element. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be nice to see it broken up instead of seeing the same thing around the entire building even if it was plaster or stone. Commissioner Gregory suggested using the same amount of stone but use it in different places. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he wanted to stress that they should be creative on the parapet lines and bring them down by introducing some architectural elements that screen the equipment that isn't necessarily just having this high parapet as you need across the face of your building. It's not necessarily just one screen in the middle. With having different equipment up there, their exhausts may be in one element and some of the air handlers are in a different element. They could use a composition of forms to take care of that. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the applicant's willingness to work with the ARC and the commission will try not to be unreasonable or dictate an architectural style. Commissioner Gregory stated that the site plan needs a lot of work and he expressed to the applicant that the ARC is very serious about this issue. Mr. Finkel stated that they can't spin the building. Commissioner Gregory commented that he's not saying they should spin the building. The site plan is not acceptable. How clear can we make it? Mr. Drell stated that the applicant is taking the worst elements of the building and pushing them right up to the street. We're willing to accept the building near the street if it looks great. The only solution in the applicant's site plan is to sacrifice some more real estate and push it off the street. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's worried that in our effort to be gentlemanly, that we're creating a monster here. Mr. Craig Smith stated that they have lots of land to work with. They can move the building back. That's not something they can't do. They can't flip the building, but they can add landscaping. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to submit revised plans. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner O'Donnell absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: CUP 03-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GULF-CALIFORNIA BROADCAST CO., 42-650 Melanie Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of installation of 80-foot self-supporting telecommunications tower adjacent to studio building. KESQ-TV LOCATION: 42-650 Melanie Place ZONE: SI Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant moved the tower to the location suggested by the commission at the last meeting. They submitted revised photo simulations. The applicant is proposing two 35' high fan palms in front of the tower. Bob Velans, representative for KESQ-TV, was present and commented that 35' is about as high as you can get palm trees. He's not aware of any taller than that. Next door is a pipe storage yard, behind them is a settling pond, Cardiff bus parking is across from them and they're in a service industrial area. Currently, they have a 65' tower on top of the building which is not structurally capable what's on there now. They're using a double guy wire and they really have to do something to basically make it safe. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Velans if he has letters from his neighbors. Mr. Urbina stated that the neighbors won't be noticed until they get to the Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Drell stated that the commission's job is to determine whether it's acceptable or in some way can be acceptable. There's no way to change the laws of physics. Mr. Velans stated that putting the antenna in the proposed location will require the City to allow them to remove one parking space. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioner O'Donnell absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. TONY BAGATO, ASSISTANT PLANNER for STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR031110.MIN 15