Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-10 ��•�� CITY F PALM M DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Revised* March 10, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. City Clerk, Rachelle Klassen swore in the new Commissioner, Allan Levin prior to the start of the meeting.* III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 5 Chris Van Vliet X 5 John Vuksic X 5 Karel Lambell X 5 Pam Touschner X 4 1 Allan Levin X 1 Vacancy Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 24, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the February 24, 2009 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Levin abstaining. VI. CASES: 000, ARCHITECTURAL REV W COMMISSION , MINUTES March 10, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 09-079 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LUIS MARISCAL, 20117 Romar Street, Chatsworth, CA 91311 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage: First California Bank (withdrew) LOCATION: 78000 Fred Waring Drive Suite 100 ZONE: C-1 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the withdrawal of Case SA 09-079. Motion carried 6-0- 0-1, with Commissioner Levin abstaining. 2. CASE NO: CUP 08-247 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bldg D 1st Floor, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an installation of a 70-foot monopalm telecommunicating facility. LOCATION: 73-750 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S.I. Mr. Bagato stated that this was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant to research other possible sites for the monopalm. Unfortunately, there wasn't a suitable location because there weren't a lot of palm trees on other sites. Staff has been working with Public Works and there were no drainage concerns, but from the development side they would request an easement from Edison. They are required to have new A/C units because they are moving the equipment inside one of the storage facilities. However, one of the issues with that is that they will have to relocate an existing wall to put in the A/C units which will remove some existing landscape in the front. When staff approved the self- storage facility, this whole project was conditioned because of a five foot setback with a blank wall and the condition required that they GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20MAR090310min revised.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2009 put in landscaping to help buffer the wall. With this proposal there were concerns with the loss of landscaping. The applicant proposed putting vines on the wall but the Landscape Specialist had some concerns with the amount of room. Staff's overall concern was that this location is very tight. The plans are showing three trees and staff usually likes to see three or four. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed location and encourages them to find another location to mitigate the landscaping concerns and get a few more trees in there. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't find this to be that offensive. In the photo sims the three live palms appear to be the same height as each other and if they were differing heights you would have more mass at different elevations and be more realistic. Mr. Robert McCormick, Verizon representative stated that they have considered raising two of the palms; one to 50 feet and one to 40 feet. He indicated that the young tree currently there will be relocated and said that they will be putting vines along the wrought iron that is there. Commissioner DeLuna said that it appeared that the applicant has done a lot of investigation of other sites and came back to this one and agreed with Commissioner Gregory with varying the heights of the live trees. The Commission discussed other areas on that lot where this could be located. Mr. McCormick explained that the monopalm would be much more visible from the freeway if located in other areas and stated that the building would screen this area and the elevation drops down. Commissioner Lambell felt that it was too crammed in. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist asked how large the foundation was where this pole will be sitting. Mr. McCormick replied that it was five foot nine inches. Ms. Hollinger stated that the minimum planter size for a tree is 48 square feet and staff will accept five by five. She pointed out that the applicant does not have that kind of space especially if they were asking for additional palm trees. She said that any plant will be struggling to survive in the wall where they want to put the condensers. In reference to moving the new tree, she requested that they not relocate it. From a landscape prospective she indicated that the plants will be struggling in that area. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090310min.dm Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION -*AWW MINUTES March 10, 2009 The Commission was concerned that there was not enough room for the live trees. Mr. Bagato stated that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be approved for three trees and if it turns out that they can't do three then staff will have to look at amending it or redesigning it. Commissioner DeLuna stated that they have spent an inordinate amount of time searching for other site locations and stated that at some point usefulness rather than beauty is the lesser of two evils. Mr. Bagato stated that staff has spent time with the applicant out in this area and there is nowhere else that would provide adequate screening. Commissioner Touschner said that the trees could be massaged and not be so close to the pole, with varying heights, as well as being a little more random. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a general rule requiring three live palms. Mr. Bagato replied that it is the direction of the Planning Commission to have four or five live palm trees. He stated that even if they picked another site none of these developments have a lot of palm trees and even if they cluster four or five they are still going to stand out. He asked the Commission if it would help by applying two or three more live palms on the self-storage property to get more trees throughout the project instead of just in one area. The Commission and the applicant agreed. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they could shift the monopalm south a bit to get more room on the upper one. Mr. McCormick replied that they could. The Commission and the applicant discussed the areas where additional palm trees could be located. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval subject to: 1) fluctuation in the tree heights; 2) additional cluster of palm trees throughout the project; and 3) shifting the mono-palm south to avoid crowding. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioners Vuksic and Levin abstaining. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WardFiles\AMinutes\2009WR090310min.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2009 3. CASE NO: RV 09-037 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DEAN VEITH, P.O. Box 752, Indio, CA 92202 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a boat behind a side gate in the RV driveway. ZONE: R-1 9,000 Ms. Grisa stated that this was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant time to push the boat back three to four feet and submit additional photos to the Commission. After review, staff is still recommending denial. Mr. Dean Veith, applicant submitted a map of his property to show the distance from the curb to the gate, which is about 40 feet. He stated that his boat is visible from one neighbor to the west or looking straight down the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Gregory stated that in terms of the spirit of ordinance it is not substantially screened. Mr. Veith asked for the proper way to screen it if you only allowed a seven foot screen for a twelve foot vehicle based on the code. Ms. Grisa stated landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet replied that he would have to have a big enough piece of property to screen it. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the top part of the boat could be removed. Mr. Veith stated that it the T-top is welded on and cannot be removed. Commissioner Gregory thought that the problem is with the ordinance itself. If you don't want these things parked on the side or the front of people's homes they shouldn't be there, but the code is so vague it creates a sense of "why not"? Mr. Bagato stated that initially the city tried to get rid of them all but there was a backlash from that. The code was written this way and the Commission treats them on a case by case basis. Commissioner Gregory said that the boat is clearly way too big to be substantially screened. Mr. Bagato stated that any decision can be appealed. Commissioner Lambell stated that it is not only the neighbor seeing this or people coming to visit, but it's the people that come around the cul-de-sac who will see the boat because it is not substantially screened. Commissioner Gregory said that the problem for him is the term "substantially screened" and the boat is so tall. Mr. Veith asked again how he could properly screen it. Commissioner Van GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090310min.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE VVU COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2009 Vliet stated that he couldn't properly screen it because it's too big - he would need a bigger lot. Commissioner Gregory stated that if he had a boat without the super structure on top it would be something they could work with. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission needs a guideline where they are reasonably consistent regarding these types of cases. The Commission asked if this was noticed. Mr. Bagato stated that it was noticed ten days before the previous meeting and Ms. Grisa stated that no correspondence was received relating to this case. Commissioner Gregory informed the applicant that if his case is denied he can appeal to Council. Mr. Bagato explained the appeal process to the applicant. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to deny a request to park a recreational vehicle (boat) on a side yard; recreational vehicle (boat) to remain on property during appeal process. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Levin abstaining. 4. CASE NO: SA 09-84 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUBWAY, 8300 Utica Avenue #245, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage; Subway. LOCATION: 75-048 Gerald Ford Drive #104 ZONE: P.C.D. F.C.O.Z Mr. Bagato presented this sign proposal and stated it doesn't comply with the sign program that was approved for the shopping center. The signs that were approved for the sign program and endorsed by the landlord and the architect showed eighteen inch letters and Subway is requesting that they be approved at 24 inches. Staff is not necessarily opposed to a larger sign if it fits proportionately, but when the sign program was approved it had small letters. This plan was submitted to the property owner and the architect who supported the larger sign as they believe they need a larger sign because they are further in the back. However, a GAPIanningUanine Judy\Word FIIes\A Minutes\2009WR090310min.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2009 monument sign was approved on Gerald Ford and their name would appear on that as well. Staff is recommending eighteen inches under the sign program since their name will be on this monument sign. Ms. Cheryl Loyd, representative stated that in the sign program it clearly states that it can be different from the sign program at eighteen inches per the discretion of the landlord. They have an exceptional amount of frontage and Subway being a registered trademark they have to stay that exact way; you can't make them longer. Asking for eighteen inches really shrinks down their visibility and advertising. The sign at 24 inches isn't extreme, and is way under the one-to-one per lineal footage allowed by municipal code. Commissioner Van Vliet said that the letters are 24 inches and asked for the size of the green border. Ms. Loyd said that the letter size is 24 inches and the contour was two to three inches on top and bottom and was added per the discretion of the architect because the building is yellow. Commissioner Van Vliet thought that it was closer to 30 inches. The Commission reviewed and discussed the sign proposal and asked if the sign conformed to the building size. Mr. Bagato replied that it complies with the lineal frontage, however the way it is presented in the drawings it looks pretty big on the building. Ms. Loyd stated that these drawings were architectural which differ from the actual appearance of the sign. She stated that she could get pictures of the building and superimpose them and resubmit to staff so they can see what the size would look like on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that eventually there will be more signage on the building which will impact it even more. He felt they didn't need four signs and thought two would be sufficient. Mr. Bagato stated that they would get four signs, one for each side of the building. Commissioner Vuksic felt that the sign had some stylization but was concerned with the 24 inch letters. He felt that eighteen would work just fine. Ms. Loyd stated that these letters are slanted and take inches off. Commissioner Vuksic stated that three of the signs already inside the project are at a close proximately before you even see the sign, so that would make eighteen inches more appropriate. Commissioner Touschner stated that they do look tiny GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090310min.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION ,%Noe MINUTES March 10, 2009 at eighteen inches on the drawings. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said that because it was such a short sign twenty inches is okay, but not 24. He recommended 20 inches plus the green border on top of that. Commissioner Touschner didn't understand why they had to have Sign B, on the saw tooth piece. She didn't think they were doing justice to the building when you look at that sign along with the other signs that will be going up. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in terms of visibility he felt that was their most valuable sign. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed, but had a problem with the two signs in the corner and said that when you are on Cook Street going over the overpass you'll see both signs because it is a corner situation. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the signs subject to the size being reduced so that the white and the yellow lettering not including the green border is 20 inches high for all four sides. Ms. Loyd asked if they could increase the signage to 22 inches on the north elevation since they had a 60 foot frontage which is still well under the sign code. Commissioner Vuksic was still hesitant of his motion as it is because they don't have a clear picture of what will be happening on the rest of the building. Commissioner Touschner said that she understood what Ms. Loyd was saying, but it would then be worse because the signs wouldn't match size wise. Commissioner Van Vliet opposed the motion because he felt there was too much signage on top and too much on all four sides. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to grant approval subject to reducing the white and yellow lettering on all four signs to 20 inches; not including green border. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Van Wet abstaining. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090310mindoc Page 8 of 15 *00 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2009 5. CASE NO: SA 09-095 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE WESTIN DESERT WILLOW RESORT VILLAS, 39104 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage, monument signage and a sign program for: The Westin Desert Willow Resort Villas. LOCATION: 39104 Portola Avenue ZONE: PR5 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that the applicant is proposing a signage program that consists of primary building identification signs at main entry points, directional signs, and site rules signage. The first sign upon entering the site off of Portola Avenue is an angular monument sign which gives visibility to drivers heading north or south. This sign has been located on the landscape plan within a desert planting to avoid the overspray of an irrigation system. It is also located outside of the public right-of-way off of Portola. Staff believes the proposed signage program is well designed and will further enhance site navigation. The materials and colors chosen suit the desert color scheme and will suit the building well. Staff is recommending design approval of the required site signage. Commissioner Levin asked if the Commission was approving signage location and size as well. Ms. Grisa replied that that was correct and stated that they were general locations because the plans showed one example of the locations. The Commission stated that they were great looking and real quality. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090310min.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVII COMMISSION % MINUTES March 10, 2009 6. CASE NO: MISC 09-86 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to add six panel antennas to existing monopalm. LOCATION: 42"d Avenue ZONE: S.I. Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this was an approval to add six panels to an existing monopalm. He presented photos of the existing site and the proposed additional panels. He informed the Commission that we do try to encourage co-location so there aren't too many palm trees. Staff's concern was with the appearance of how the existing head looked. We talked to the proposed company that is working on the expansion if we were to approved the co-location we are requesting that they re-do the head of the palm and they said they would talk to the existing carrier about doing that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the head is more obtrusive than what they are proposing. The Commission asked if the fronds could be refurbished. Ms. Veronica Arvizu, representative stated that they have already talked with AT&T and they are aware of the situation and that it would be a part of the approval to repair the fronds. The Commission asked if at one time were there additional palm trees located at this site and would they be required to plant additional palm trees. Mr. Bagato stated that this is for a co- location and adding trees would not be a requirement. He indicated that he could look into the existing Conditional Use Permit with AT&T to see if they are in violation and then take it up with them. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin to grant approval subject to: 1) palm fronds being refurbished; 2) staff to review prior approval for maintenance of live palms. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVA Minutes\200MR090310min.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2009 7. CASE NO: RV 09-074 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRISTY DONOHUE, 73-364 Salt Cedar Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request for storing a travel trailer on property. LOCATION: 73-364 Salt Cedar Street ZONE: R-1 12,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a nine-foot high RV in their side yard driveway behind a five foot seven inch high gate. This gate connects to a side yard wooden fence that adequately screens the RV from the street and adjacent neighbor. The exposed height above the fence line and gate is approximately three feet and the RV appears to be right at the front roof line of the house, not above it. The code reads the vehicle should not project beyond the front roof line of the house. Staff believes the location and screening is adequate as the RV exists in the current photographs. The photos were taken of the neighborhood traveling east and west bound on Salt Cedar and the RV was not visible, only when right in front of the house. Staff also recommends that the PVC poles and the fallen tarp that exist now in the photos should be removed as they do not further screen the RV or upgrade the appearance. Furthermore, six foot is the maximum wall height in residential zones along the property line unless further screening is approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The applicant has proposed a vinyl mesh screening material to be placed along the top of the side yard fence to screen their RV from their neighbors view. This screen would be 24 feet long at a three foot ten inch height. Staff believes that this would further attract attention and is unnecessary as the RV is adequately screened as shown. Staff recommends approval to park a recreational vehicle, in its current state, in the side yard of the property. Ms. Christy Donohue, applicant stated that she would do whatever the Commission deems necessary to properly screen the trailer. She stated that in two to three months she will be downsizing the trailer or removing it completely. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\200 AR090310min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVrW COMMISSION swoop` MINUTES March 10, 2009 Mr. Tim Bartlett, neighbor had objections to the notice. He pointed out that the notice states, "review of an application to store a travel trailer behind a side yard gate in the recreational vehicle driveway", which assumes there is a recreational vehicle driveway and he said that was an improper notice. He was in possession of a letter from Mr. Homer Croy that states that staff acts as a vehicle in this case to present the item to the Architecture Review Commission in a way that best meets the intent and purpose of the municipal code. If you look at the municipal code it clearly states that "the city council finds recreational vehicles not regulated as to parking and storing on private property do not enhance the community's appearance and may interfere with the health, safety and public welfare of the community." One of his objections is fire safety as there is no access between the buildings. This RV occupies the space between his fence and the applicant's structure so if a fire did break out on the applicant's property it is likely that this would prohibit fire fighters from not only fighting the fire, but protecting his home as well. He explained that this is a privacy issue since the placement of the RV's window allows someone to look right into his bedroom. He mentioned that Code Enforcement recently discovered a large amount of dog feces under the RV and that the trailer is also hooked up to water, sewer, and power, which is also a problem. He stated that in his opinion, staff's job is to enforce the municipal code and the code is quite clear that adequately screening an RV be a part of the proposal. The applicant has proposed a screening device but apparently staff didn't like it so they are proposing none. Proposing none is an interesting stance to take. Normally if staff doesn't like something they tell applicants to come back with something else. Ms. Grisa stated that if staff did believe that it needed additional screening they would suggest that it be brought forth in a different manner. However, since this is a typical RV situation, as seen in other examples, staff believes that additional screening is not necessary. Mr. Bartlett asked if staff felt that 60 percent was adequate. Ms. Grisa stated 60 to 75 percent is adequate as long as more than half is covered. Mr. Bagato said this is consistent with what has been approved in the past without requiring additional screening. Mr. Bartlett stated that staff is not presenting this in a manner that is upholding the provisions in the code; adequately screened means adequately screened. GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\200MR090310min.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ..ri MINUTES March 10, 2009 Commissioner DeLuna asked if this was at the height allowed and within the code requirements. Ms. Grisa replied that it was. Commissioner Levin addressed the issue with the proposed screening material. It is his understanding that staff's concern was not with the screening material it was the fact that if the screening material is not maintained then it looks bad because it isn't up there. Mr. Bartlett clarified that the screening material shown in the photos was a screen that he erected on a temporary basis. Commissioner Touschner asked if the screen being proposed was just between the two properties and not along the front. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Touschner said that it seemed to her that there were two issues; the screening from the street and the screening from the neighbor. Ms. Grisa replied that that was correct and said that the trailer is three foot five inches above the gate. The trailer height on the attachment is nine feet and the side gate is five foot seven inches. Commissioner Touschner referred to the power and water and asked if they could have this hooked up and using it on a regular basis. Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager of Code Compliance stated that some houses have RV utility hookups that were installed when the house was constructed. The question would be if it's actually being occupied or lived in or is it for maintenance reasons, which are allowed. The Commission discussed the neighbor's fire concerns. Mr. Bagato stated that the fire department only needs a five foot minimum clearance on at least one side of both properties. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated that staff brought this concern to the attention of the Fire Marshall and he was not concerned with an RV as being any different from any other vehicle and did not see this impairing the fire department. Commissioner DeLuna asked again if there was anything outside of code requirements and Ms. Grisa said no unless the Commission requires additional screening. Commissioner Gregory said it's not just code it's this very subjective analysis of this very awkward ordinance. Commissioner Gregory asked about the height of the property line fence and if the properties were at the same grade. Mr. Bartlett replied that the fence was about five feet seven inches and the applicant's pad is two feet higher. Mr. Bagato stated that the GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\200gAR090310min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIV COMMISSION , MINUTES March 10, 2009 maximum height is measured from the lower pad. Ms. Grisa stated that the fence can be six feet from the high side on the condition that the neighbor on the low side approves it as they will have the higher wall. Commissioner Gregory wondered if the view of the RV could be mitigated by making the fence and gate a little taller so they still conform to code and then it might be adequately screened. He also suggested a tree be planted on Mr. Bartlett's property to take away the impact of the trailer. Mr. Bartlett said that the front view was blocked by a large sized van the applicant parks in front of it. His concern was that he can look right into the RV from his bedroom window. Commissioner Gregory asked if the fence were increased in height, according to code, would it block the view towards his bedroom. Mr. Bartlett asked if that would be the maximum six feet according to code. Ms. Grisa said it would depend on the grade difference. For instance, if he was eighteen inches lower than his side of the fence would be seven feet six inches. Mr. Bartlett said that would help. Ms. Donohue stated that she had planned to remove the trailer before this issue came up because they don't use it anymore and will be selling it in the spring, like April. Commissioner Gregory stated that if she is planning on selling it they could give her a 90- day extension and look at it again if that doesn't happen within that time frame. Mr. Bartlett said fine, it's been six months so another 90 days would be no problem. Commissioner DeLuna moved for a 90-day continuance and Mr. Bagato said to move it to a date uncertain since they don't know what that date will be and this issue would have to be re-noticed. Mr. Ponder asked if they wanted to stipulate that the RV remain on the property during this process. The Commission agreed. Mr. Bartlett stated that if it goes away in 90 days it would be done. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to move Case No. RV 09-074 to a date uncertain in response to the applicants request to allow her time to sell the RV; RV to remain on property during this process. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A MinuteS\2009\AR090310min.dOc Page 14 of 15 r ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION r..r MINUTES March 10, 2009 8. 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: Final approval of 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 The Commission reviewed and discussed the construction plans for Candlewood Hotel. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to grant approval of construction plans subject to: 1) A/C equipment to be properly screened; staff to verify; and 2) review and approval of landscape plans by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lambell absent and Commissioner Levin abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Touschner to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009V1R090310min.doc Page 15 of 15 �✓ `ww+`