Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-13 �1•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES October 13, 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 16 2 Chris Van Vliet X 17 1 John Vuksic X 17 1 Karel Lambell X 17 1 Pam Touschner X 13 5 Allan Levin X 12 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 22, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the September 22, 2009 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner abstaining. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION % MINUTES October 13, 2009 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-144 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to co- locate seven panel antennas to existing roof. LOCATION: 73-345 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that the applicant, Royal Street Communications is requesting to add seven panel antennas on the roof top of an existing building. The existing building is 27' to the tallest point. The antennas will be at 30'. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 states when installing on top of a building, no commercial antennae shall be greater than fifty percent over the building height. Currently there are existing antennas on the roof top that are screened by a transparent wall painted to match the building. The applicant is proposing to screen the antennas the same way. At the last meeting, the applicant was proposing the antennas at 36'. The applicant has reduced the overall height of the antennas down to 30'. The ARC had concerns regarding what could be seen on the roof. Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes were intermittent. The Commission reviewed the plans and made a motion to approve. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. WPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091013min.docx Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL Fk,,..IEW COMMISSION ; MINUTES October 13, 2009 2. CASE NO: CUP 09-236 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATION INC (T-Mobile USA), 3257 E. Guasti Road, Ste 200, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to construct a 55' high monopalm wireless telecommunication facility. LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue ZONE: PD Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. Initially, a proposed monopalm of 65' was submitted. Staff was concerned with the height due to its proximity to residential areas and the ability of the height of the monopalm to blend in with the existing natural environment. Staff requested that the applicant representative place balloon benchmarks at 55' and 65' to visualize the two heights on the site. Photos of these height benchmarks were included in the packet. Staff determined the 65' height was unacceptable and would not support an approval of that height. The applicant agreed to lower the monopalm to the 55' height surrounded by five live palms at 25' and 30' in height. With the proposed modification, staff believes this will be an acceptable visual aesthetic in the proposed neighborhood. The 55' height meets the standards in Municipal. Code Chapter 25.104 Commercial Communication Tower and Commercial Antenna Regulations. The City of Indian Wells was given advance notice to view the balloons while they were in place at the heights of 55' and 65'. The Planning Director viewed the balloons and reported zero visual impact to the City of Indian Wells. Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm would be compatible with adjacent properties with the approval by the Planning Commission to waive the separation requirement of 300'. Currently the monopalm is roughly 268'-1" from the nearest residence, is visually consistent with adjacent landscaping, and would create no adverse visual impact on adjacent properties; including visual access of adjacent properties to sunlight. With regard to landscape requirements, the City's Landscape Specialist has not given preliminarily approval of the landscape plant materials, but recommends that the plans meet all planting and irrigation design requirements prior to obtaining construction permits. In order to assure the most preferred and efficient outcome GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\H Minutes\2009WR091013min.docx Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 plans should receive preliminary approval from the City's Landscape Specialist prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In addition to a landscape plan, grading and pad elevations for the proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Ms. Monica Morreta, representative said the reason they had originally submitted the height of 65' was because the design has the antennas stacked and the typical design is with the antennas exposed. They are stacking because the code requires that the only way you can request a reduction in the setback is to hide the antennas completely and the planning commission will make that determination. She also pointed out that by reducing the height by 10' it also lowers the height of the antennas, however the radio frequency engineers determined that 55' will work. Commissioner Lambell asked if the antennas would be completely hidden. Ms. Morreta stated that was correct and explained that they would be located inside the trunk of the palm tree; the only thing you will see is the micro-wave dish. The Commission discussed the height of the monopalm and the height and species of the live palms. It was suggested that they plant date palms, which are slow growing. Ms. Grisa stated that she had previously explained to the representative that higher palm trees would blend in better, but the representative informed her that it would interfere with the frequency transmission. Ms. Morreta explained that once you have antennas stacked, the line of sight cannot be obstructed in any way. That is the reason they requested live palm trees below the antennas so there is no interference and by increasing the height of the live palm trees to 45', 40', 35' it will interfere. The Commission stated that was the first time they had heard that information. Commissioner Lambell asked what the maximum height of the live palms that were being planted and Ms. Morreta said that it would be 30'. Commissioner Lambell stated that the 30' palm tree would be 25' below the monopalm and said it would look odd. The Commission discussed the height of the monopalm and the live palms and suggested relocating one of the trees to the backside near the mountain to create a stepping of tree heights. Commissioner Touschner stated that in the city there are other taller groupings but none that have a 10' difference between the live trees and the base of the antennas. Ms. Morreta stated that other carriers have different frequencies that shoot through landscaping better and others that have higher frequency; T-Mobile GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20MAR091013min.docx Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL Ril,,,,AEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 cannot do that. The engineering department has a lot of strict restrictions to not allow any landscaping to interfere with antennas because it is no longer transmitting the signal to the donor side. They would have to cut the trees to make sure that the facility is functioning correctly. Commissioner Gregory stated that when they have these criteria it is probably based upon palms that grow more rapidly. He said that if they use a date palm which is a slower growing palm and planted it taller the City could get the look they desire. The Commission is trying to detract from one lone palm tree sticking out in the center of a grove of trees. He suggested having a taller palm on the backside near the mountain to help create a look of hierarchy. Ms. Morreta stated that in that area they could probably do one palm at 40' between the two sectors, but she would have to check with the radio frequency engineer. Commissioner Lambell stated that there is a residential area close to it so it would need to be mitigated as much as possible. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and stated that this is a highly visual area near the Living Desert Reserve which is one of the biggest attractions in town and it has to look good. Ms. Morreta stated that one of the obstacles with this project was to find a location at the Living Desert where they were comfortable placing the facility. The Commission and the applicant discussed the heights of the palm trees and Ms. Morreta asked if the Commission would consider having a 40' palm on one side and palms ranging from 30' and 25' on the other side. Commissioner Gregory said that the Commission would want to see more reasonable spacing, which would be taller than 40'. He suggested 45' and 35' for instance, where there are 10' increments with a slow growing palm. The Commission and the applicant discussed having a grove of trees ranging from 45' to 35' to 30' so there are different heights. Ms. Morreta said she would check with the engineer. Commissioner Lambell suggested that Ms. Morreta take a look at the grove on Highway 74 and Haystack at St. Margaret's Church. She thought there was three monopalms with several live palms and stated that they have done a good job with that grove. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the project with the condition that the complimentary palms are date palms in varied heights ranging from 45' to 35' to 30' to create a good composition of trees and the maximum height of the monopalm will be 55'. Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minu1es\2009\AR091013min.docx Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION war MINUTES October 13, 2009 Touschner felt that the Commission should limit the number of palms at 30'. Commissioner Lambell agreed and stated that there should be only one at 30'. Commissioner Vuksic added to his motion that there be a variety of heights with final approval by the Landscape Specialist. Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further comments. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist pointed out that the applicant stated earlier that they would do everything they can to make sure that the antennas are clear and she asked Ms. Morreta what will they do when the palms reach a height where they start to interfere. Ms. Morreta said they would have to perform some maintenance to cut the fronds as much as they can. Ms. Hollinger suggested they replace the palm tree at that point because all the palm trees at the Living Desert have their skirts on and the City does not allow that type of pruning. Ms. Morreta wanted to make it clear that all the trees would be date palms. Commissioner Gregory wanted to make it clear that the monopalm be a date palm so that it doesn't get changed and mentioned that the date palm species should be Phoenix dactylifera. Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Vuksic if he was comfortable with all the addenda to the motion and Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was and the motion carried 6-0. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to: 1) the monopalm being a date palm with a maximum height of 55'; 2) the complimentary palms to be date palms with varied heights of 45', 35' 30' — with only one at 30'; 3) landscape plans to be reviewed and receive preliminary approval by the Landscape Specialist prior to Planning Commission submittal. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: MISC 09-404 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDOUL SALEHI, 10 Audalucia, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a fagade remodel; Best Buy. LOCATION: 72-369 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. 3 (SP) GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AA091013min.docx Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL Rh%w&W COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 Mr. Bagato presented this project and stated that this proposal is for signage and a fagade remodel of the Best Buy, which is being relocated to the Desert Crossing Center in the former Circuit City building. Staff worked with the applicant to come up with the best solution to modify the storefront. He indicated that they are adding blue tile in the front to create an entry way, the paint color will remain the same; they will be removing the steel grid under the canopy and adding a new exit door to the left of the main entry. They are also modifying the rear of the building by adding a roll up bay for deliveries. The signage complies with the code and will have reverse channel letters, which is compliant with the center and consistent with what is at.the existing Best Buy at night. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the lettering was back lit to get a yellow halo around the letters and asked where they were getting the yellow halo around the price tag. Mr. Dwayne Shmel, representative said that there was another piece of metal going around the perimeter that houses the light. The Commission reviewed and discussed the directional signage for the "Geek Squad". Mr. Shmel indicated that the purpose of the directional sign was to identify the location of their car stereo install bay. The Commission discussed the location of the sign on the building and felt that there wasn't enough space for it. Mr. Abdoul Salehi, owner stated that there was enough room and said that the lights are at 14' and the top of the doors is 10' which leaves a 4' spacing. Mr. Shmel asked what the requirements were for getting a way- finding sign or a directional sign out near the street that goes behind the center to identify the location of the Geek Squad. Mr. Bagato stated that the center already has a monument sign as well as directionals within the center. He explained to the representative that if they wanted to do something different they could submit to staff for review. Commissioner Touschner had a concern with the tile on the arms and said she wasn't comfortable with putting tile there. Mr. Shmel explained that Old Navy did some work on the flanking elements on either side of their main entrance tower and they took their cue from that without having to completely alter the shape. Commissioner Touschner asked for pictures. Mr. Bagato stated that Old Navy only changed their front piece and that they have a steel grill in the middle entry way. Commissioner Touschner stated that she wasn't GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091013min.docx Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 11` MINUTES October 13, 2009 in favor of changing the consistency of that piece throughout the facility. Commissioner Levin stated that the logo is very brand identifiable and agreed that they didn't need the arms for an identifiable location and thought it would be more identifiable if they just had it over the entry. The Commission and the owner discussed the molding detail. Mr. Salehi stated that he copied the exact same molding that they had. Mr. Shmel said to keep in mind that they have a store across the street that's been in the market for about 13 years that has a number of very large blue elements that identified the brand. He stated that they are trying to maximize the blue brand identity for this building so customers will recognize that. He said they want the blue tile because they are giving up quite a bit of blue as well as the wedge. The Commission asked why they were taking down the trellis work on the front entryway. Mr. Salehi stated that it doesn't go well with what they have now and if they keep it they would have to repaint it; then it will conflict with the rest of complex because no one else has that detail with that color. They want to open up the entryway so that there is more openness as you enter. Mr. Shmel stated that it is a subjective call and said that with their stores they like to open up the front and allow as much light to come in and allow people at night to see that they are open for business. Commissioner Gregory stated that the branding element doesn't bother him or the elimination of the trellis work. He felt they were doing everything right by chiseling out the existing plaster and putting the same molding detail and it is very tasteful. He wondered if the next person coming in will do it and expressed that they have to be careful about precedent because it will change. Mr. Bagato said he requests that applicants mix it a bit to give some variety and from his standpoint it wasn't over the top where it would be incompatible. The Commission reviewed and discussed the blue bands on the front of the building. Commissioner Vuksic thought it works there because there is a lot of building beyond and wondered what the rest of the center looked like. Mr. Bagato said that the building to the right is Office Depot, and to the left is DSW and Pier One about 150' from the columns. The Commission and Staff discussed the various storefronts and how far apart they were from Best Buy. Commissioner Van Vliet didn't have any problems with the blue horizontal on the sides and is okay with the way it is submitted. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR091013min.docx Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RiN.AEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic noticed the sign was 12" from the top and 12" from the bottom at the closest point, but on the drawing he didn't see a line representing that extra metal band that is housing the lighting. He asked if that metal band was within that field where the sign is showing. Mr. Salehi stated that it wouldn't show and said that the shop drawings were accurate. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the band will be a foot away from the border of the field. Commissioner Lambell wanted to make sure that the only sign on the front was the Best Buy sign and Mr. Shmel stated that was correct. Mr. Salehi asked if they could place the Geek Squad sign above the light fixture to give them more visibility on the back side of the building. The Commission reviewed and discussed the sign location and suggested placing it over the customer service door at the same height. Mr. Shmel asked if the Commission would consider giving them an option of moving the sign depending on line of site. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to placing the south side "Geek Squad" sign either over the roll up door or over the customer service door at the same lineal height. Motion carried 5-1-0-0, with Commissioner Touschner voting NO. 4. CASE NO: MISC 09-398 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): XENOPHON DEVELOPMENT LLC, 47-177 El Agadir, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to build a new residential home and garage over the required 35% lot coverage than the R-1 zone allows. LOCATION: 72-605 Pitahaya Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented this project and summarized the staff report. The home is horizontally profiled in mass with a rectilinear flat roof. The highest roof dimension would be at 13', layering down to 10'. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,105 square foot residential home including a 519 square foot garage. The lot totals 7,175 square feet. Maximum building site coverage for this zone is 35%. The total site coverage for the proposed home and garage is 44%. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\W Minutes\2009\HR091013min.docx Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' MINUTES October 13, 2009 Section 25.16.080 of the City's code allows the lot coverage to be increased to 50% subject to Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and approval. Items for the ARC to consider are building setbacks and compatibility with the neighborhood. The proposed home meets all building setbacks. Many of the other homes in the neighborhood meet the 35% lot coverage. Staff feels that the proposed home at 44% lot coverage is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed home will visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the existing neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the proposed home at 44% lot coverage. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that the plans indicate that the chain link will remain and Mr. Tom McArthur, owner stated that it was an error and said that the fencing is there now for security purposes and would be removed when completed. He stated that Redwood would be on the east side and Redwood in between the stone columns on the west side. The chain link on the south side would be replaced with Redwood. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if Redwood was an approved material and Mr. Swartz stated that it is for the rear and sides only; anything on street side would have to be decorative block or wrought iron. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it was the applicant's intent to have two air conditioning units on the roof. Mr. McArthur said that the units were on the ground and the heating access for the forced air was on the roof. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why he would put the blowers on the roof and Mr. McArthur stated that the architect wanted it that way. The Commission reviewed the roof plans and the air conditioning units. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested getting the units on ground level because they would be highly visible on the roof. Commissioner Levin asked about the setbacks and Mr. Bagato said there some setback issues and they would have to bring them into compliance with the setbacks. Mr. Swartz stated that the garage or the home would have to come in a little bit on the side. Mr. Bagato stated that the garage would have to be a minimum of 20' by 20'. The Commission discussed the parapets and the slope of the roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there were some issues with the plans and said that if the details are not clear on the plans, chances are there could be problems during construction and end up with a terrible solution. It is better to get it worked out before they start construction. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesVA Minutes\2009WR091013min.docx Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL R4w4EW COMMISSION '"` MINUTES October 13, 2009 Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes were intermittent. There was discussion regarding setbacks. Commissioner Touschner asked for a detailed roof plan showing the location of the condensers. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant a continuance subject to: 1) submit a detailed roof plan showing the condensers; and 2) reducing the house or garage to comply with setbacks. Motion carried 6-0. 5. CASE NO: MISC 09-411 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM FLITSCH, 405 Hiddencamp Road, Thousand Oaks, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of exterior paint color; ATRIA SENIOR LIVING. LOCATION: 44-600 Monterey Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented this project and summarized the staff report. The request is for two different applications, one for the exterior paint color and one for the new signage / water feature. The applicant is requesting approval to change the paint color, add a new water feature, and install a new monument sign. Atria Hacienda is broken up into four buildings. The current color scheme is a cream color with brown trim. The new colors are earth tones that blend in with the desert setting. There is a main field color, two accent colors, one trim, and a new window color. All four buildings will be repainted with the same color scheme, but applied differently. The existing roof tiles will remain. No other physical changes to the building will be made other than color changes. The proposed colors will enhance the buildings and the surrounding area. The colors are earth tones that blend well with the desert setting. The building is an older building that is in need of enhancement. With the color change and the update of landscaping, this works well together. Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes were intermittent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091013min.docx Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 Commissioner Touschner liked the colors but was concerned with two of the colors being very similar and felt there should be more of a contrast. Mr. Flitsch, applicant stated that they did a mock up in the internal courtyard to make sure there was a contrast and in daylight it does read well and felt there was enough textural contrast between them. Commissioner Touschner suggested making them a little more vibrant. Mr. Flitsch stated that they wanted to keep within the colors of other buildings in the city. Commissioner Lambell asked how the scuppers and downspouts would be painted. Mr. Flitsch stated they are meant to match the adjacent stucco so they blend out. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to 1) selection of paint to be more varied in color; 2) down spouts to match stucco color; 3) colors to be reviewed and approved by staff. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic abstaining. 6. CASE NO: SA 09-412 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOM FLITSCH, 405 Hiddencamp Road, Thousand Oaks, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new monument sign and water feature; ATRIA SENIOR LIVING. LOCATION: 44-600 Monterey Avenue ZONE: R-1 The new signage and water feature will be located in the main entrance. Currently there is an existing sign and water feature that will be removed. The total length for both will be 29'-2", with a height of 4'-6". The water feature has a length of 19' and a height of 4'. The applicant is beefing up the existing planter where the water feature will be located. The planter will be raised by 36", and will have an accent tree and other plant material. The bottom of the planter will be raised 12" with a plaster finish and pre-cast cap. The water feature will be located between the two planters. The applicant is proposing 6" x 12" decorative glass tiles, and copper spillways where the water will deploy from. GAPlanningVanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091013min.doa Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL Fhw.4EW COMMISSION 00 MINUTES October 13, 2009 The new monument sign is 44 square feet and will be located directly behind the water feature and planter. The sign is 10' x 4'- 6". The sign is sandblasted glass internally illuminated within the base on a 1' base that will be plastered and painted to match the planter. The sign will incorporate the address in 4" letters, the name Atria Hacienda in 8" letters, and Assisted Living and Care in 4" letters. The letters will be super French, mounted to the glass. The sign meets all development standards and a landscaping plan has been approved. The proposed monument wall signage totals 44 square feet. The building frontage totals 216 square feet. Based on the standards, the proposed sign complies with the maximum allowed square footage, and may be approved by the Architectural Review Commission if it is determined to be architecturally compatible with the building. Staff believes that the proposed sign is architecturally acceptable. Commissioner Levin asked if the fountain that was there now would be removed. Mr. Bagato stated that they will be moving the existing fountain and the existing sign on Monterey. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how the sign was illuminated and Mr. Tom Flitsch, representative stated that it was internally illuminated with glass on both sides and six to eight inches thick. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the plans. Mr. Ronald Gregory, Landscape Architect, stated that the detail has not been completed yet and wasn't sure if it would even be six inches thick. The light will be from the bottom shining up and the glass will be frosted and possibility a pane inside the center to prevent the other side from showing through. Mr. Bagato said that if there was concern about the thickness for massing it can be brought back to ARC for review at a later time. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that since we are in a water crisis, having a water feature doesn't send a very good message. She mentioned that besides her review, it will be reviewed by the Water District and wanted the applicant and the Commission to be aware that the comments may come back regarding it. Commissioner Lambell stated that if the water feature goes away then the whole landscape will need to be looked at again and Ms. Hollinger said that was correct. Commissioner Touschner asked what the feature would look like when there is no water in there, or if one of the features are broken, GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200"R091013min.docx Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 or decide that it's not worth it from a water point of view; would they still like how that looks. Mr. Flitsch stated that they worked with their landscape team and staff to make sure that it looked good if it is turned off at night time or at any time for maintenance. He said they like the volume, the wall where they stepped it back, how they accented the plant material, and are comfortable if it were turned off as an improvement. He stated that they would like to have a little activity with the water and pointed out that it's about a quarter of the water consumption that they are currently using in their existing water feature that is not visible. He stated that they will not be running the water late at night and there will be a time of day when they quiet it down a bit. Commissioner Touschner said that despite the fact that it uses less water than the other feature, it begs the question, why not go one step further and use no water. She felt it would look nice without the water features. Mr. Flitsch stated that there is a water feature in Courtyard A that they would be willing to eliminate as a reduction in water. Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes were intermittent. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to 1) staff's review of glass monument sign; 2) reducing the current water usage on the campus; and 3) landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Gregory abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion of the revised Recreational Vehicle Ordinance. Ms. Grisa informed the Commission of alternative options that were discussed with a few extra sub-committee members that were not part of the previous group. She included in the Commission packets copies of the existing ordinance in place today, the amended ordinance that went before the City Council on October 8th and a site plan illustrating proposed RV parking locations. G:\PlanningVanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR091013min.dmx Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2009 Ms. Grisa mentioned that the City Council requested staff to form another sub-committee with the same members and asked Commissioner Van Vliet if he would like to sit on the committee again and he agreed. She informed the Commission that the City Council requested that staff appoint two to three interested residents to the subcommittee. The Commission discussed the expired moratorium. Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes were intermittent. Ms. Grisa stated that the revisions will be presented to the Architectural Review Commission for review. Commissioner Touschner suggested that the Commission needs to look at all four corners of a lot, not just the front and sides. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR091013min.docx Page 15 of 15