Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-12 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 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 9 2 Kristi Hanson X 10 1 Chris Van Vliet X 11 John Vuksic X 11 Ray Lopez X 10 1 Karel Lambell X 7 4 Nancy DeLuna X 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Acting Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 22, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve the May 22, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVN COMMISSION rrr' MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: C 07-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID HIDALGO ARCHITECT, INC. 316 S. 1S Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of fagade renovation to existing 10,126 square foot restaurant/retail building. LOCATION: 72-990 El Paseo ZONE: PC (3) SP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: RV 07-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRY ARCHER, 77-185 Michigan Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to allow parking of an RV behind enclosed block wall. LOCATION: 77-185 Michigan Drive ZONE: R-1 9,000 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant has submitted plans for an RV to be located on the side of his driveway and the ordinance requires that any RV located in the front yard be significantly screened to the greatest extent possible by a combination of walls and landscaping. There is currently a 6-foot high block wall that was approved under the old code standards. The applicant has indicated that he would be installing a new gate to further screen the RV. The Commission asked if there was an illustration of the gate design. Mr. Bagato indicated that the drawing of the gate was all that was available at this time. The Commission requested a gate design be submitted for review. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Mr. Terry Archer, applicant, explained that this was a 7-foot cab over camper that fits over the back of his truck. When on the ground it's just over 6.5 feet high. He explained that he had approval from the Homeowner's Association and also had letters from the neighbors in support. Mr. Bagato stated that neighbors within 300 feet were notified, as the ordinance requires and asked for comments. Ms. Linda Dempster, neighbor, asked if this was the same location where a large motorhome was located. The Commission explained that it was a camper and not a motorhome. They presented the photos to Ms. Dempster for her review. She stated that she had concerns about a motorhome on the same street and the Commission explained to her that this would be code issue and referred her to Code Enforcement. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval subject to submitting a gate design for staff review. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 3. CASE NO: MISC 07-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NAOMI KOBRIN, 73-559 Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert, CA 92235 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of metal fencing material and a reduction in the required setback to allow a gate to be 12 feet 6 inches from the curb. LOCATION: 73-559 Joshua Tree Street ZONE: R-1 12,000 Mr. Bagato stated that this was a request for an exception to the wall ordinance for material and setbacks for the gate. Pictures were provided for review. Ms. Naomi Kobrin, applicant, stated that the photos showed a repeat of the poured-in place wall with columns on both sides of the gate. On the one side of the gate, she is proposing a poured-in place wall and on the other side there would be a sleeve that would cover the support that carries the gate back and forth. It would be powder-coated in bronze to match the mailbox. GAPlanningUanineJudy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070612.min.DOC Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVMW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far the poured-in place wall sticks out past the gate. Ms. Kobrin indicated that it goes three inches past the 5-foot gate that is setback 12 foot 3 inches from the curb. Commissioner Hanson indicated that she liked the look of the gate and felt that the gates improve the overall feel of the front of the house. It is atypical material, but she liked the way it looked. The Commission discussed the material, the poured-in place wall and landscaping surrounding the wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that the applicant has been smart in her design and has thought out the materials. The cleverness of the poured-in place concrete with the T and G finish was a great addition and what also makes this nice is that there isn't a whole wall in front of the property and landscaping is used to break it up. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner DeLuna abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent 4. CASE NO: SA 07-86 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SWAIN SIGN, INC. 1384 E 5T" Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of sign program; Kohl's Department Store. LOCATION: 34-940 Monterey Avenue ZONE: P.0 (3) Mr. Bagato stated the proposed sign meets the standards, except that the store is only allowed 155 square feet of sign area. The proposal calls for 5-foot tall letters that would be over 38 feet long and over the allowable square footage at 190 square feet. He stated that if they reduced the letters to 4-foot high, the sign would get down to 152 square feet, which could be approved for both sign elevations. Mr. Bagato recommended approval of the sign with 4- foot letters as submitted. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070612.min.DOC Page 4 of 15 1 ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Mr. Kevin Parker, sign representative, stated that this was basically Kohl's white-faced logo and he believed that they would be willing to reduce it down to the allowable square footage. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval with a reduction of letter size from five feet to four feet. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with Commissioner DeLuna abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO: SA 07-63 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE, 3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92637 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new signage to replace existing signage; First Team Real Estate. LOCATION: 72-171 Highway 111 ZONE: C-I Mr. Bagato stated that this was a requested approval for signage, landscaping and color. Commissioner DeLuna asked if any change or modification had been made to the water feature or the fountain element as previously submitted. Ms. Cheri Pulcini, Facilities Manager, stated that there was a change of 30 inches on the width of the columns and it was changed symmetrically as requested by the Commission at a previous meeting. Mr. Bagato stated that there was some change to the columns architecturally, but they were still proposing the same water feature. Commissioner DeLuna asked how much water would be used. Mr. Freeland stated that it would be a small trough. The trough is only two feet wide by the length of the sign and the water would be set as low as possible to keep the splash inside the trough. Commissioner DeLuna asked why they wanted the water feature and what it added to the sign. Mr. Freeland stated that it would be a visual enhancement and add architectural character. Ms. Pulcini stated that it would pump up that corner 100%. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVfEW COMMISSION *W01 MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 The Commission discussed the use of water and electrical power of this water feature. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when reviewing the drawings for the fountain, the elevation didn't match the plan. The elevation suggested some ins and outs that were not reflected in the plan view. For example, the center portion looked like it was in front of the pillar, yet when he looked at the plan the pillar was in front of the center portion. Mr. Freeland indicated that it had changed per staff's request and stated that it used to be flush and was changed to be wider. Commissioner Vuksic once again stated that the elevation didn't match the plan. Commissioner Van Wet stated that because of the discrepancy, the Commission was hesitant to approve anything. Commission reviewed the elevations with Mr. Freeland and Mr. Fraser McClellan, Architect. Commissioners Vuksic and Hanson both sketched a design to explain how to correct the submitted illustration. The Commission and representatives discussed the sketch. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt that there was a misinterpretation of what was suggested and the submittal of a plan and elevation that didn't match. He suggested using the corrected sketch and stated that it was what the Commission intended to tell them. Commissioner DeLuna still had concerns with the water feature. Commissioner Lambell stated that the building was old and boring and some attention should be made to that corner and felt that by adding the sign with the water feature would pump it up. Commissioner Hanson had concerns with the colors indicated on the color board and felt that the building would appear striped. Commission and representatives reviewed the colors and realized that the colors were not correct. Representatives pointed out the correct colors and stated they would resubmit the color board. Commissioner Hanson made the suggestion that the whole lower section be brown. Mr. McClellan stated that his concern was that the whole building faced north and was all in shadow and he would hate to darken it up. He wanted it to blend into the roof tile. Commissioner Vuksic stated they could approve this in concept and let staff review for final. Commissioner DeLuna asked what they would be voting on. Commissioner Vuksic stated they would be GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ``w# MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 voting on the colors on the building, and a fountain design with the concept of massing it as shown on the sketch, where the central portion is actually out further and the other portion comes into it, and wraps on top of it with water around it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) revising sign to match the conceptual sketch subject to staff review; 2) revise color from green to dark brown on the top of the building; and, 3) preliminary approval of landscaping subject to review by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-1-0-1, with Commissioner DeLuna voting NO and Commissioner Gregory absent 6. CASE NO: PP 05-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC., 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revision of roof material for Alegria unit; Spanish Walk. LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (former Emerald Desert site) ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Stendell stated that he had a request from one of the developers within Taylor Woodrow. On one of the product types they were using a blend of colors on the roof with a Spanish type material that uses a boost, squish or heavy concrete with 20% in the roof tiles. They have requested to remove the 20% and just go with the concrete the blend. Ms. Amy Warren, Taylor-Woodrow representative, stated that their architect raised a concern about the aesthetics of the 20% boost. She asked the architect why they were shown on the plans and he stated that it was an error on their part and apparently wasn't something that they were conditioned to do, therefore not placed on the plans. She also stated that the roofer had concerns with the wind and the 20% boost. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if this boost would be eliminated on all units. Ms. Warren stated there wasn't any boost on any other product there. She stated that they would be doing an S-tile with GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE N COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 ---------------- five color variations throughout the color scheme for the group. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would look much better with the boost. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the concern was with the wind. Ms. Warren stated that the roofer said that in the high wind areas they don't do the boost as much because of the wind because there is an extra element on top of it. Commissioner Van Vliet indicated that he had never heard of any problems here with the boost and the wind. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to deny the requested change in roof material. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO: MISC 07-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOBBY & JANENE MILTS, 72-534 Hedgehog Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an 18' roof. LOCATION: 72-777 Tampico Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 8. CASE NO: SA 07-84 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FORT KNOXX JEWELRY, 73-121 Country Club Suite E-2 Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exception to an approved sign program. LOCATION: 73-121 Country Club Suite E-2 ZONE: P.0 (2) GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Res\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 9. CASE NO: SA 07-85 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BUTTERFLY LIFE, 73-011 Country Club Drive Suite F-1, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exception to an approved sign program. LOCATION: 73-011 Country Club Drive, Suite F-1 ZONE: P.0 (2) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 10. CASE NO: CUP 07-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEN SPERBER, 77-770 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to allow a detached RV garage within a rear yard. LOCATION: 77-780 Robin Road ZONE: RE 40,000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REIN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 11. CASE NO: MISC 07-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PETER HARTWIG, EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION, 75387 Stardust Lane, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 16' 10" roof height. LOCATION: 44-466 San Jose Avenue ZONE: R1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with Commissioner Lambell abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new commercial/industrial building; Marty's Tires Plus. LOCATION: 73-741 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I Mr. Stendell indicated that they have had preliminary meetings with the owner and the architect regarding setback issues which have been rectified. He stated that he liked the building and said that it was a very industrial building in an industrial area. He spoke with the applicant relative to the typical roof elements and extending the parapets back. He recommended applying the 2/3 rule. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the block had a deep rake joint. Mr. Ochoa indicated that it was a 4-inch block, exposed with a deep rake joint. The metal on the turret that displays the logo is GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *"me MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 alucobond type of material and the element that looks like a tire would be made out of metal. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they were 8 x 8 block and Mr. Ochoa indicated they were an 8 x 16 block and scored in the middle to provide an "8 x 8" look. Commissioner Vuksic stated that overall it looked great. He had some concerns with some of the materials and how they would work in certain spots. Looking at the north elevation he saw lots of glass that was happening in a block wall. Mr. Ochoa stated that it was a storefront glass system. Commissioner Vuksic stated that since the wall was pretty big he wasn't sure if the glass was recessed very far and asked if that wall would be pretty flat. Mr. Ochoa stated that it was recessed to whatever the depth would allow for the storefront, maybe 3 or 4 inches. Commission Vuksic stated he was concerned with the windows that were out by the surface of the walls that needed more punch. Mr. Ochoa stated that the reveal would be about 5 inches and they could create a double fake wall to set that back to give it more depth. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the parapets and returning them back 2/3 of the width of the element. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were evaporative coolers on the roof. Mr. Ochoa stated that they were on the inside of the building. Commissioner Lopez asked how they accessed the roof and Mr. Stendell stated that there was a roof hatch inside the building. Commissioner Hanson was wondered about a situation where you have block and a plaster thing hanging in the same plane and asked if there was a way they could make it overlap, fake it or set it back. Mr. Ochoa sketched his intentions and the Commission stated that that would be better. Mr. Stendell asked the Commission how they felt about the green and grey colors being proposed. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it was grey block and Mr. Ochoa stated that it was precision gray block. Mr. Stendell stated that the green occurs over the elements that were popping out. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REN COMMISSION VOW MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Commissioner Lopez asked about the landscape plans. Mr. Ochoa stated that plans were being revised. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the metal overhangs were a dark brown color. Mr. Ochoa stated they would probably be the same color as the alucobond, a silver color. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) parapets returning back 2/3 of the width of the element; 2) recess windows to the greatest extent possible; 3) revise pop-out element per discussion; and, 4) landscape review by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 06-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATRICK YANG, 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, CA 91776 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised plans for a four (4) story hotel, 88-unit hotel with restaurant and related amenities; Candlewood Hotel. LOCATION: 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD Mr. Stendell presented revised drawings for Candlewood Hotel. He felt that they did a good job regarding Commission's comments to simplify the restaurant building. They had good offsets and depth. He also felt that they backed up what they showed on elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked where they were going with the hotel. However, he had a concern with the hotel regarding the stairwell and the kind of detail they were using there. At the entry, he saw a large flat area around the windows above the third and fourth floor and suggested that they take the lavender colored element and thicken that up and come in closer to those windows, so they really look recessed and punched in there. The scales of the windows were ok, but he didn't like the flat around them. He discussed his concerns with the representative. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070612.min.DOC Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REV COMMISSION r.w•r MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the restaurant looked much better, but that the elevation appeared too flat. He felt that some of the column elements needed to be thickened up around the glass so they would look like they could actually support the huge masses above them. He suggested recessing the windows more into those surfaces. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the Commission did not have an actual color board and were reviewing copies of colors. He had concerns with the grey and the light beige and what they would actually look like. The Commission requested a color board. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on a section of the restaurant there was three foot high equipment on the roof, and asked if that was realistic and asked wouldn't they have five-foot high exhaust fans up there. Mr. Yang stated that at this time they didn't know what would be there yet, but indicated that there would be a parapet to hide that type of equipment. Commissioner Vuksic reminded Mr. Yang that there would be slope on the roof and some of the equipment would grow, and to keep in mind that the equipment had to be below the level of the parapet. Currently the parapet was four feet high. Commissioner Lopez asked how they were doing on parking. Mr. Stendell stated that they were adequately parked. Commissioner Lopez stated that around the kitchen area on the site plan, it looked like they were squeezing parking areas in. It would be nice not to have those there in order to do more landscaping because this was crying out for more landscaping. Mr. Stendell stated that they have had a couple of meetings with the landscape designer who has been promising the most landscaping that they could possibly fit in. Commissioner Lopez noticed that there wasn't any landscape buffer around the pool area where the asphalt, fencing and decking was. He suggested adjusting the spa to put in more landscaping. Mr. Ray Martin, Landscape Designer stated that he was working on the drawings and would put a planter bed in that area. Mr. Stendell stated that at one point they had two and three-foot sliver planter beds and we suggested that they remove them. It didn't make sense to have these tiny planter beds, but now that we have refined it more there is room where we can get more of them in. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVMW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 Mr. Stendell asked Mr. Yang if the satellite dish would remain on the ground and stated that they would have to utilize that space for landscaping and one more parking space. Mr. Yang indicated that it would be relocated to the roof. Commissioner Lopez asked if they were okay with the retention areas and asked if it would be drained into a retention basin. Commission reviewed the plans and Mr. Stendell stated that they would be keeping it on site and the last he heard they may have had some kind of a deal to drain a little into the storm drain in the center of the street, because this is a very flat piece of property. He doesn't know the status of that and was in the initial stage with the engineer. He said they do have retention detention all over the site. The Commission discussed the roof plan and trash enclosures. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to staff review; and, 1) work with staff to increase detail on hotel stairwells; 2) thicken up lavender covered element on the hotel and come in closer to the windows to add more depth; 3) thicken up the column elements around glass on the restaurant and recess windows to the greatest extent possible; 4) parapet heights equal to or higher than roof mounted equipment; 5) extend planter bed on the fireplace elevation; 6) relocate satellite dish to roof to create additional landscaping and parking; 7) submittal of color board; and 8) landscape review by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner DeLuna abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager discussed concerns regarding the limitations of the high-density development in terms of landscaping, utility infringement and ADA requirements. He stated that, due to a significant encroachment on the minimal landscape area that is in high-density developments, we couldn't provide the level of aesthetic value in our landscapes that the city has set in place, and that landscape integrity could not be maintained because of small planting areas. He also stated that the urban forest tree canopy has been decreased due to the size of trees used. Utilities infringing on planter GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2007 beds add another challenge to successful landscape design. Regarding the ADA requirements, more landscape area is being lost in order to get length of ramps for correct pitch and roll to provide accessibility for wheelchair users. Mr. Knight stated that the size of the buildings could be reduced in order to keep landscape integrity. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development, stated that the City has been lenient with developers in allowing them to go forward in their plan check permitting without having their landscape approved. She mentioned that staff is now starting to take a firmer stance and to force developers to submit landscape designs for approval prior to pulling permits. She asked the Commission for their support in requiring developers to submit their utility and landscape plans at the design stage. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Van Wet, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. YAN STENDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\2007\AR070612.min.DOC Page 15 of 15