Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-10 ��T----� CITY F C O PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' MINUTES June 10, 2014 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 Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 11 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 10 1 Paul Clark X 10 1 Gene Colombini X 11 Allan Levin X 10 1 Michael McAuliffe X 10 1 Jim McIntosh X 11 John Vuksic X 11 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 27, 2014 Action: Chair Van Vliet moved to approve the May 27, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: ODP 13-210 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CAFE DES BEAUX-ARTS, 73- 640 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new awning: Cafe Des Beaux-Arts. LOCATION: 73-520 El Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing green and white awning and replace it with a copper awning. This was continued from a previous meeting because the applicant didn't have a rendering and it was hard to depict what was being done. The applicant has now produced a piece of the actual awning for the Commission's review. The Commission left the conference room to review the awning sample. Mr. Swartz suggested the reddish columns be painted a darker brownish red and said the owner is agreeable to repainting them. The Commission discussed the radius and believed it was too rounded. The applicant stated that the owner desires to use the existing awning frame, which maintains a rounder radius. The Commission reviewed and discussed the awning radius. Commissioner Colombini suggested reducing the radius by 4" to 5". Commissioner Van Vliet suggested that the art work stand off to create more space between the art piece and the awning. The Commission and the applicant discussed the bands at every joint. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned that the shape and material of new awning would be boxier than the existing frame structure. He also said it will be important that the ribbon proposed along the bottom is offset from the surface below, so the cut design can read. He suggested that the cuts be a minimum of 1/4"' unless there is a reason the artist wants to have some cuts that are thinner in certain spots. He also discussed the ribs and said they should line up with the columns. G\ 'lanninc\Janine JudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 2 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 The Commission discussed the color of the awning material. MR. SERGIO GARCIA and MR. ANTONIO SANTAMARIA, applicants stated that the awning material will dull over time, which is a good thing because right now it's pretty glossy the way it looks. Commissioner Vuksic suggested a site visit to look at the existing awning for the current frame and shape. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to continue Case ODP 13-210 with Commissioner's comments. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 2. CASE NO: MISC 14-197 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALEX ROSE, 42-697 Jacqueline Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for an exterior home to be painted sky blue. LOCATION: 42-697 Jacqueline Circle ZONE: R-1, 9,000 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said the applicant purchased this home and wasn't aware that he needed approval to repaint the house blue. The house previously was a grey color with some accents in white. He presented a PowerPoint of the house and pointed out where the blue areas where located as well as other homes in the cul-de-sac; which were a mixture of colors. MR. ALEX ROSE, applicant, said he acquired signatures of approval from the adjacent property owners. He said he was not aware that he needed approval from the City and said he looked around his neighborhood for color ideas. He didn't see any rhyme or rhythm to the paint colors and didn't think there was a City ordinance. Mr. Swartz said this house is at the end of the cul-de- sac off of Gary Street and from there the house is not visible. He had advised the applicant to talk with the neighbors who would be impacted the most with this color. Commissioner Levin asked what prompted this to come to this Commission. Mr. Swartz said Code Enforcement was doing a drive by of the neighborhood. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 3 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION I10INUTES June 10, 1014 Commissioner Lambell said the direction given to this Commission is that the City encourages desert colors. She admires that the applicant is just using the blue as an accent color and not on the whole house. Chair Van Vliet agreed and said this is too intense. If it was a different shade of blue, it might work. Commissioner McIntosh said the biggest impact is the saturation of the color and with certain colors a little bit goes a long way. He also agreed that this is a good accent color but not necessarily a good color for the body of the building. There is nothing offensive about the color in the right proportion and the right amount of it. However, because there is a lot of blue on this house, that is where you lose the harmony of the neighborhood MR. ROSE said the surrounding neighborhood is an old funky neighborhood and there are all kinds of different colors and because of that, he thought there wasn't an ordinance. Commissioner Clark asked the applicant if he had alternatives to this sky blue color. MR. ROSE said yes and supplied color samples for the Commission's review. Commissioner Lambell informed the applicant that some of these colors in the hot sun won't read the blue and some will go pastel. She said the whole theme of the house next door with the rocks and plants and a neutral color reads very pleasantly. She pointed out that it doesn't have to be all one color or that he has to change the landscape. He just needs to rethink it. Commissioner Vuksic feels if this color is going to be blue, it will have to be pastel to work. He also pointed out that there isn't a lot of blue on the house because he doesn't have a lot of wall surface in the front. This Commission has to be careful not to set precedence. A house usually has to have architectural merit in order to use a really strong color. Saying "desert colors" is a little misleading because you can find pretty much any color in the desert. Earthy colors work and if you want to go beyond that, there needs to be a lot of care and a learned application of color. He said as a neighbor he would have a hard time with this color. He said the Commission has an obligation to protect the neighbors and the neighborhood. Your neighbors may not like it but they don't want to stir things up. G\ fanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 4 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 Commissioner Lambell moved for a continuance and Commissioner Levin made the second. Mr. Bagato said if they are asking for a continuance to work with staff on a more pastel blue color, this would have to return to this Commission. He recommended that this be denied so staff can work with the applicant so this won't have to return to the Commission. Commissioner Lambell moved for a denial of the sky blue color subject to working with staff on a more pastel blue color and Commissioner Levin made the second. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to deny Case No. MISC 14-197. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. Commissioner McIntosh recused himself from this project and left the conference room. 3. CASE NO: RV 14-181 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: STEPHEN SPENCER, 77-745 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exception to allow the on-site storage of a recreational vehicle on the west side of the property. LOCATION: 77-745 Delaware Place ZONE: R-E, 40,000 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said this is a consideration of an exception to the RV ordinance. Because of the home's orientation to the street they do not have the traditional right angles where RVs can be stored. This is somewhat of an unusual circumstance since it does not allow for full screening. He presented a PowerPoint with photos of the property and how the RV sits at this location. He said at a staff level he is not comfortable with approving this since it does not meet the intent of the RV ordinance to have it fully screened. In addition, when the RV is parked straight on, the RV actually extends beyond the home about 2' and the RV ordinance requires that all RVs are behind the plane of the home. He presented photos of the proposed screening method and pointed out the plant material and stated that the applicant can fill this in with more plants. He also said the neighborhood was noticed and GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 5 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 he has heard back from four neighbors; two in opposition and two that are either indifferent or in support of it. Mr. Ceja said the dimensions for the RV listed in the staff report were incorrect and said it is actually 8' wide, which conforms to code. Mr. Bagato pointed out that RV permits come before the Commission now only as an exception and since Mr. Ceja recommended denial at the counter it is here for an exception. He also said that under the new code, RVs have to be 100% screened or an exception has to be applied for. The exception is based on an unusual circumstance and in this case the design of the house makes it hard to screen the RV 100%. Chair Van Vliet asked if there were any other areas onsite where the RV could be stored to satisfy the ordinance, for instance in the rear yard. MR. STEPHEN SPENCER, applicant, said he has spent a lot of money custom making the area where it is stored currently. He would have to tear a wall out along with the plantings. MRS. KIM SPENCER stated they have had an RV onsite for about 18 years. Chair Van Vliet said the number of years doesn't matter but if it was in the rear it would probably meet the ordinance. MR. SPENCER said they could turn the RV sideways as shown in one of the exhibits and it would be pretty close to the measurement, but then he would have two work trucks in their front driveway. Chair Van Vliet said according to the diagram the RV is almost touching the perimeter wall. MR. SPENCER said it would be behind the house. Chair Van Vliet asked how they would screen it if it was almost touching the wall. MR. SPENCER said ficus would easily screen that area or bougainvillea. Commissioner Lambell said traditionally they don't look at landscaping as assistance to screening it because it could die and then you're right back to the same problem. Chair Van Vliet said that landscaping would be his only option. Mr. Bagato said since there is such a large gap in the side yard the way the house is oriented they would have to build a hedge around the RV in an area to completely screen it, but then you're looking at a hedge that looks like an RV. Commissioner Vuksic says he remembers a number of times where applicants would try to screen it with landscaping and ends up a really unnatural boxy mass of green. MR. SPENCER asked what the other option would be if he couldn't use landscaping. MR. VUKSIC asked about the rear yard. MR. SPENCER said he would have to remove all the fruit trees they have just planted and take down a wall for access. MRS. SPENCER also stated they have a septic tank in that area and didn't know if they could put concrete G.I'anningJanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 6 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 on top of it. Commissioner Vuksic pointed to an area in the yard and asked the applicants if this was a viable option. MRS. SPENCER said in the middle of the back yard and Commissioner Vuksic asked them how important this was to them. MR. SPENCER said it is important to park it at their location because it is also used for their family earthquake preparedness plan. Commissioner Colombini asked about an enclosure for the RV; a simple enclosure. MR. SPENCER asked if this was allowed in Palm Desert. Commissioner Colombini said if it meets the setbacks for that area. Mr. Bagato said they could build a detached garage for the RV and stated that it has to be 15' from the side yards and 25' from the front property line, which is 12' from the curb. MR. SPENCER said they have lived at this property since the City took this area over from the County and asked if there was any kind of grandfathering under the City code. Mr. Bagato said not with the most recent RV ordinance and pointed out that staff will be informing property owners who have been identified who are not in compliance. The City is trying to strike a balance between the people who don't want to see RVs and the people who want to retain RVs on their property. If they can store the RVs on property with 100% screening, other than the front, that was the compromise to allow them. So unless you can get it in a building or screen it 100% the only other option would be to move it off site. Mr. Bagato said the City gave residents a one-year time frame to apply for grandfathering and a one-year time frame for residents to conform to the new code or to remove the RVs from their property. MR. SPENCER said if they had been noticed would they have been grandfathered in. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Planning, said only for that one year period. At the end of the one year the RVs needed to either be off site or be 100% completely screened. MR. SPENCER said this is only a couple of feet off and asked if there could be an exception because it is such a large property. Chair Van Vliet said the advantage of having a large piece of property is that you have room to put it somewhere else. MR. SPENCER understands that, but since it is only a couple feet off why can't the Council agree. Chair Van Vliet said the ordinance is written with very specific language about what an applicant could and could not do. At this point, there were multiple discussions taking place making it difficult to transcribe minutes. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 7 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 MRS. SPENCER said it is a little frustrating to be in this situation after having the RV onsite for 18 years. She said they have tried to comply with the ordinance, but they have been told different things by several people regarding it being 100% screened, and whether it's acceptable for a hedge. They were also told that they had a two- year period for the hedge to grow in. She said they just want to keep their motor home. She understands the rules and knows there has to be city ordinances, but they also know that there are exceptions to these ordinances. Commissioner Levin asked what the area was behind the RV and MR. SPENCER said it is a patio cover with an outdoor eating area with a BBQ. Commissioner Levin asked if it was possible to cut that back to move the RV back farther. MRS. SPENCER said they have huge pieces of granite that make up their outdoor kitchen. MRS. SPENCER reminded the Commission that the RV is stored on the side of their house. Commissioner Levin said the way the ordinance is RVs cannot be visible from a public street and unfortunately because they are on a corner, they have two public streets. Chair Van Vliet also pointed out that the new ordinance also states that it has to be completely screened except for the gate in front. Mr. Bagato said the new code states that it be 100% screened and behind a gate. MR. SPENCER asked what other type of screening was allowed if they couldn't use plants. Mr. Bagato said landscaping would be an acceptable screening. The Commission discussed the screening materials and the location of the RV. Mr. Bagato pointed out that the house doesn't screen the RV because of the angle of the home. And even if they get the RV push back 2', it will still be visible because of the large gap and the home doesn't completely screen it from either side. Commissioner Lambell told the applicants to be open about other ideas and MRS. SPENCER said they have really thought about other ideas. Mr. Bagato said the other option would be to store it offsite. MR. SPENCER said all because a couple of feet. Chair Van Vliet said it is more than a couple of feet. Commissioner Vuksic said it is not about the couple of feet. He drove by the property and a couple of feet didn't cross his mind it was the fact that he could see it. The Commission and the applicant discussed a hedge along the property line and Chair Van Vliet said there would have to be a hedge on both sides of the RV and the back plus a 6' gate in the G\'lanninc\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 8 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 front. MR. SPENCER said that is why they are asking for an exception because he feels it is close enough. The Commission and the applicant discussed the diagrams submitted by the applicant. MR. SPENCER said he has two work trucks that park in the same area as the RV and if he has to rearrange the RV according to diagram #2, then he would have to park his trucks in the front driveway. Chair Van Vliet asked how to proceed and Commissioner Clark said staff is recommending denial. MR. SPENCER asked if it was a denial because of the screening. Chair Van Vliet said yes. MRS. SPENCER asked if they could go forward and possibility work on the screening and bring it back. Chair Van Vliet said technically it is not supposed to be onsite if it's not 100% screened. Mr. Bagato said it was offsite when code was addressing this issue and staff asked them to park it back on their property so staff could get pictures. He said the applicants are aware that it has to be parked offsite while going through the approval process. MR. SPENCER asked if no one complained would it have been approved. Mr. Bagato said there are two options. Staff notifies the neighbors and they can request a hearing or staff can deny it if they are not comfortable with it. Mr. Ceja said he has received one phone call and one letter in opposition. MR. SPENCER said one of the Commissioners is a neighbor and asked if that had anything to do with the decision. Chair Van Vliet said he didn't know what difference that would make since the ordinance is strictly written and said this Commission has never given a variance to anyone with an RV. Commissioner Vuksic said what concerns him about this request is because of setting precedence. He stated that if we approve this one being in front of the house, what happens when the next person requests the same thing. MRS. SPENCER agrees but said when you drive through Palm Desert you come across a lot of RVs and she feels like they are being picked on. Commissioner Levin said there are a lot fewer RVs now since they approved the ordinance. In order to grant an exception, there has to be an extraordinary circumstance that prevents the applicant from complying with the ordinance and so far you haven't given us that extraordinary circumstance other than it has been there for 18 years. Commissioner Clark asked what the options would be for the applicant if this request was denied. Mr. Bagato said they can appeal to the City Council to see if they will approve it. If not, then GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 9 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION WNUTES June 10, 1014 they would have to relocate it and come up with another solution. Commissioner Clark asked if they could work with staff for additional options. Mr. Bagato said yes. The Commission reviewed and discussed the two options; Diagram #1 and Diagram #2 and the setbacks. Commissioner Lambell reminded the applicants that in order to comply with the ordinance this has to be completely screened. The fact that you will lose parking for two of their trucks is not an extenuating circumstance. Commissioner McAuliffe asked about a triangle area near where the RV was stored and MRS. SPENCER said it was her garden. Commissioner Lambell said this Commission has to follow what the ordinance states and they have given the applicants several alternatives for a new location. She made a motion for denial and Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Vuksic said they feel bad for the applicants and didn't like denying this. It is with a heavy heart that we are having this discussion. Commissioner McAuliffe reminded the applicants not to give up on creative solutions just yet. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to deny Case No. RV 14-181. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0-1 vote with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 14-170, TTM 36351, C/Z 13-221 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., Jeffrey C. Schrader, 6130 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 185, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural landscape plans: TTM 36351. LOCATION: SWC Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive ZONE: P.R.-22 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said the applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing 30-acre parcel into a 20-acre, 111 lot, single- family subdivision. They are proposing three plans; each with three elevations. The development standards they are proposing are for Ci''lannin3\Janine JudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 10 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 interior lots which are 50' in width with 5' side yard setbacks, 15' front yard setbacks, and 15' rear setbacks, with garages setback 4' to 7'. Side yard setbacks on corner lots will be 10'. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the track map layout indicating where the lots are distributed around the property. He pointed out the main entrance that will provide shared access between the two housing sites. He presented the three plans and a materials board for the Commission's review. There are significant grade issues from the corner of Dick Kelly Drive and Dinah Shore Drive that drops about 60'. Because the narrow lots pick up this grade, the developer is proposing to make the lower grade lots with additional depth to pick up along that slope. They will also install garden walls that will pick up along that slope so that it is not taking up everyone's backyard with the 15' setback. The walls will be 6' high slump stone with caps and portions of the walls are used for retaining walls. He discussed the perimeter landscape plan that has been reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Specialist. He described the variety of plantings for this property. The Landscape Specialist commented on the street trees throughout the community and was concerned that each individual residence will have three trees in their front yard landscape and is recommending that they eliminate the street trees or if they choose to keep them that they eliminate a tree from the front yard landscape. She feels that it will be too crowded on the 50' wide lot. He pointed out the monument signs that will be copper plated and staff has placed a condition that monument signs will return to ARC for review. The Commission discussed the removal of the street trees from the property. The Commission reviewed the setbacks and the tree types. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that these trees do not have large canopies and felt it was a shame to remove trees and asked who will maintain them. MR. JEFF SCHRADER, Developer of Ponderosa Homes, said there will be a Homeowner's Association (HOA) and they are very specific with their CC&Rs regarding architecture and landscape design. The HOA will basically be responsible for approving any changes that were requested by a homeowner and they will have to meet the standards in the plan set. He understands the issue with the trees and there may be a couple of solutions; moving one, relocating one, maybe adding a shrub standard. They haven't decided yet how this will be managed, but the last project, similar to this one, they had the HOA maintaining the front yards. It makes it a lot easier and consistent. He understands the concerns because the yards are not big. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2014\140610min.docx Page 11 of 14 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 MR. SCHRADER discussed the slope of the project, perimeter walls, and retaining walls, and said a fair amount of the slope is taken up on the southern edge, which is a common area lot. He described the types and height of the walls on the side yards as well as the rear yards. Commissioner McIntosh asked if they were planning on some relief and depth in the windows to create some shade and shadow. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the relief and Commissioner Vuksic suggested a minimum 6" relief on the front windows. Commissioner McIntosh and the applicant discussed the roof venting and how they can become a nice architectural detail and get optimal venting. They also discussed the horizontal HVAC units in the attics. MR. SIMON HIBBERT, Ponderosa Homes, said there will be a condenser in the rear yard and a forced-air furnace in the attic. Commissioner Clark wanted the applicants to be aware of the high winds in this area. Commissioner McAuliffe said very rarely do we ever ask someone to take away trees. He feels they should work with staff on finding the right combinations rather than removing. MR. WILL PINAROC, Ponderosa Homes, said they have been given a shopping list of trees; vertical versus canopy versus flowering. They can mix and match to create a nice landscape in front without overcrowding the trees. Commissioner Lambell asked if there will be a solar option and asked how this would impact the elevations. MR. SCHRADER said they don't have the details yet and mentioned there are specific requirements for the roof area. The Commission and the applicant discussed the material for the trellis outside the garage. MR. HIBBERT said they understand that they will have to choose materials appropriate for this environment. The Commission discussed the location(s) for the utility meters and the trash containers. MR. SCHRADER said they typically build enclosures with walls that are stuccoed with the same material as the house. C,`I'Ianniny\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014Y140610min.docx Page 12 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 The Commission discussed the perimeter walls and Mr. Ceja pointed out that as a requirement of the code there will be an 18" column and/or pilaster every 30' with a stone veneer wrapped around it. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that Plan 3, elevation 2 shows the ridge height at 18'-11" and the other two elevations are 18'-8". She informed the applicants that the height of all the homes should be under 18'. She also pointed out that the 5:12 pitch is too steep for this area. MR. SCHRADER said he will check on this because it may have just been mislabeled. Commissioner Levin asked about the access street on the southwest corner. Mr. Ceja said across the street from Crotesia Way there is a future school site for Palm Springs Unified. Staff asked the developer to provide a pedestrian connection so school kids can use this access rather than going to the main gate and then all the way back around. Commissioner Levin and the applicant discussed the access gate on the southeast corner. MR. PINAROC said this will be Emergency Vehicle Access only with a gate. Commissioner Levin was concerned that there will only be one way in and one way out of this community, which will be a long way to go for the homeowners. Commissioner Clark suggested that the applicant consider an additional study for a secondary entrance/exit, as well as further study of the main entry. Commissioner Vuksic left at 2:35 p.m. Commissioner Levin said these lots cannot accommodate a pool and no ability to build one, plus no recreation area. He asked if this was something staff could condition. Mr. Bagato said there is a minimum Open Space requirement in the PR zone. They can ask for exceptions at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Ceja pointed out that the common space was Lot E. However, they are not proposing any sort of recreation facility at this time. When this comes back for ARC review, a plan will be presented at that time. Mr. Bagato said if they don't meet the open space requirement staff will have to condition that to be some kind of a recreation area. We don't require people to put in pools so they can design it as a recreation area; like a playground without a pool. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.dou Page 13 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1014 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to preliminary approve subject to: 1) minimum 6" relief on front windows; 2) create architectural detail for roof venting; 3) perimeter walls shall have a minimum of an 18" column every 30' along the public right-of-way; 4) columns shall have a cap and be covered in a stone veneer that is complimentary to the perimeter wall design; 5) additional study for a secondary entrance and exit; 6) entry monuments signs shall be submitted under separate application; 7) final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Landscape Division and CVWD prior to approval of a precise grading plan; and 8) revisit the proposed roof pitch(s) to ensure building heights are no more than 18' high. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None V1I. COMMENTS None V1II. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Levin, and a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. T,DNY BAGATO, RINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY ,lh E JUD P DING SECRETARY G:'I'fanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140610min.dou Page 14 of 14