►
From YouTube: Planning Commission | May 11 2022
Description
The City of Planning Commission Meeting, held May 11th, 2022
B
C
A
Thank
you.
Can
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
agenda.
B
E
A
That's
unique
unanimous.
Thank
you
public
comments.
This
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
public
to
address
the
planning
commission
on
consent,
calendar
and
other
items
and
items
of
general
interest
within
the
subject
matter.
Jurisdiction
of
this
commission.
Please
note
that
the
planning
commission
can't
take
action
on
items
not
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Each
speaker
will
have
three
minutes.
Testimony
for
public
hearings
may
be
offered
at
this
time
or
at
the
time
of
the
hearing,
as
there
are
no
public
hearings.
A
A
Mr
dan
wyabel.
A
A
There
being
no
one
who
wishes
to
speak,
the
public
section
of
public
comments
is
closed.
The
next
item
before
us
is
the
consent
calendar
and
it
is
approval
of
the
minutes
of
april
27.
2022.
A
I
have
one
which
is
in
the
resolution.
I
believe
that
we
also
requested
that
the
aac
make
any
you
know
suggest
any
changes
they
deemed
necessary
to
the
building.
I
believe
that
was
part
of
the
motion.
A
F
G
A
Okay,
3a
we're
moving,
there's
no
public
hearing
and
we're
on
unfinished
business.
Avalon
11,
1150
llc
for
the
approval
of
final
development
plans
for
130
residential
units
on
50-foot
wide
lots
in
within
the
phase
two
section
of
the
mural
on
development
located
at
1801
sunrise
way
zone
pdd290,
section
35..
G
G
Two
separate
meetings
were
held
with
the
applicant
by
the
subcommittee
and
before
then,
staff
met
with
the
applicant
to
go
over
the
issues
that
were
listed
by
the
planning
commission.
So,
having
said
that,
madam
chair
I'd
like
to
share
my
screen
and
I'll
go
through
the
revised
plans
with
you.
Thank.
A
G
C
We
see
the
powerpoint,
yes.
G
Yeah,
okay,
is
it
showing
now
yep?
Okay,
all
right?
Okay,
sorry
about
that,
I'm
sure!
Okay.
So,
as
was
submitted
to
you
on
january
12,
the
overall
scope
of
the
project
remains
the
same
again.
It
is
for
130
single-family
residential
homes
and,
as
also
proposed,
the
plant
types
will
remain
the
same.
There
are
five
different
plant
types
designated
as
plant,
one,
two,
three
four
and
five,
and
there
will
be
two
separate
floor
plans.
G
The
elevation
types
are
tube:
they
are
designated
as
plans
a
and
b
as
for
the
mass
and
scale
plants,
one
two
and
three
are
all
single
stories
and
plants.
Four
and
five
are
two
story:
buildings.
G
G
So
the
issues
that
staff
has
determined
with
the
revised
plans
are
that
some
of
the
plans
are
still
not
consistent
with
the
mira
long
design
guidelines,
specifically
the
plants
b,
did
not
follow
the
the
all
the
comments
made
by
the
subcommittee
have
not
been
incorporated,
especially
regarding
the
roof
lines
of
the
homes,
and
I
want
to
point
on
the
materials
that
are
being
used.
G
The
use
of
vinyl
windows
window
on
the
window
frame
says
that
it's
not
allowed
by
the
mirror
loan
design
guideline,
but
I
want
to
remind
the
planning
commission
that
on
march
13
2019,
the
planning
commission
actually
whipped
that
requirement
from
the
conditions
of
approval.
Although
we
did
not
approve
the,
we
did
not
amend
or
delete
that
requirement
from
the
mineral
on
design
guides
what
it
sees
specifically
in
that
conditions.
That
is
that
this
requirement
will
be
determined
on
the
case-by-case
basis.
G
It
is,
it
says
that
it
would
be
encouraged,
that's
what
that's,
how
the
output
goes.
Yes,
and
also-
and
finally,
the
colors
that
are
being
proposed
need
to
be
updated,
as
some
of
them
seem
dated.
So
the
applicant
will
work
on
that.
Overall,
a
lot
of
the
plants
will
need
additional
changes,
especially
again
on
the
plan
b's
majority
of
the
comments
made
by
the
subcommittee
on
plants
a
have
been
incorporated.
G
So
when
the
applicant
is
called
upon
to
make
a
presentation,
they
will
be
given
explanation
as
to
why
the
plan
b's
were
not
changed,
so
that
would
be
during
their
presentation
again.
This
is
the
overall
site
plan
of
the
mirror
launches
of
development.
As
mentioned
these,
these
plans
will
be
going
to
the
face
view
area
of
the
maryland,
where
I'm
pointing
my
corsage
to
right
now.
G
H
G
I
have
the
floor
plan.
The
one
to
the
left
is
the
original
floor
plan.
The
one
you
saw
on
generate
web
and
to
the
right
is:
is
the
revised
floor
plan.
As
you
look
towards
the
bottom
of
the
platform,
you
will
see
some
minor
adjustments
that
have
been
made
on
the
along
the
driveway
apron
and
then
the
walkway
areas.
G
Some
other
changes
have
been
made
in
some
of
them.
In
the
rear
section
of
the
floor
plans.
G
This
is
revised
plan
on
plan,
one
plan
type
one.
This
is
the
elevation.
So
what
I
do
here,
what
I'm
doing
here
is
to
be
showing
you
comparing
on
side
by
side
on
the
ones
that
you
saw
in
on
january
12
and
the
revised
plan.
So,
but
here
is
the
real
revised
plan
elevation.
G
So
this
next
chat
will
show
you.
The
plan
that
you
saw
on
january
1st
under
january
12th
and
the
one
to
the
right
is
a
revised
plan.
The
comments
made
on
the
second
meeting
by
the
subcommittee
was
that
the
direction
given
to
the
applicant
that
the
elevation
mass
of
bedroom
wink
to
be
purple
instead
of
open
instead
of
overhang-
and
this
is
the
changes-
are
right
here.
The
applicant
did
make
the
changes
to
the
to
the
roof
lines
and,
as
you
can
see,
there
are
changes
in
the
windows
area
of
the
elevation.
G
And
these
are
more
changes
and
there
are
more
sections
of
the
elevations.
So
here
we
see
again
to
the
left.
Is
the
elevation
are
the
elevations
that
you
saw
on
january
12
and
to
my
right?
Are
the
revisions
made
to
the
elevations?
All
these
are
contained
in
the
exhibits
that
the
planning
commission
has.
G
Here
is
one
of
the
issues
that
are
pointed
at
this
is
rever.
This
is
the
revisions
to
plan
one
b,
as
I
mentioned,
there
are
issues
with
elevation
bees
of
all
the
plants.
It
appears
that
there
are
the
applicants
according
to
them,
they
got
all
the
comments,
but
after
research
and
they
came
back
and
said
they
made
some
revisions
too
changing
the
the
slope
and
the
pitches
of
the
flat
roof.
G
However,
it
remained
very
similar
to
what
you
saw
on
january
12,
and
so
these
are
the
two
of
them
side
by
side
again,
the
first
one
to
the
left
is
the
one
you
saw
on
january
12,
and
this
is
the
revised
elevation
they
proposed
after
the
meeting
with
the
subcommittee,
the
subcommittee
had
directed
that
they
wanted
the
masonry
element
to
extend
up
past
the
sloped
roof
and
omit
the
overhang
and
use
parapet.
Instead,
it
made
some
of
the
changes
here,
however,
the
sloped
roof
remains.
G
Some
of
the
changes
are
noticeable,
however,
on
the
talking
about
the
roof
lines,
they
remain
almost
the
same
as
and
as
I
mentioned,
the
pitch,
the
pitches
have
been
reduced,
they're
no
longer
as
high
as
they
were
originally,
but
the
fact
is
that
they
were,
they
have
not
been
totally
changed.
G
G
So
well,
let's
start
with
the
roof
line.
As
you
can
see,
this
is
the
original
one
that
you
saw
on
them
on
january
12..
Looking
at
the
roof
lines,
they
look
different.
They
have
reduced
the
number
of
slope,
roofs
that
were
incorporated
into
the
original
design.
The
the
revises
are
having
simplified.
However,
they
are
still,
they
still
remain
rule
and
you
see
more
articulations
on
this
wall
here
on
the
original
one.
G
G
This
is
the
floor
plan
of
plan
two,
so
looking
at
the
overall
spatial
arrangement
of
the
floor
plans,
the
noticeable
changes
for
core
in
the
front,
looking
at
the
driveway
pattern,
a
little
different
than
the
one
you
saw
originally
and
then
the
walkway
area
still
the
same
thing.
G
G
So
this
is
the
revisions
revised
plan,
two
a
on
the
a
elevations
again
looking
at
the
the
roof
lines
they
are
different.
You
will
see
that
it
will
be
different
than
what
you
saw
originally
looking
at
them
side
by
side.
You
can
see
the
difference
on
this
plan.
Again
they
have
slanted
angled
roof.
G
Here
it
is
flat
the
subcommittee
had
directed
them
to
incorporate
windows,
flush
windows
to
on
the
side
of
overhang
or
and
possibly
eliminate
above
front
wall.
They
did
all
of
that.
So
this
is
revised
plan.
G
G
Same
thing
applies
to
the
window,
so
this
is
a
very
clear
example
of
some
of
the
changes
that
have
been
made
on
on
this
elevation.
So,
as
you
can
see
here,
when
we
have
these
three
windows
and
then
you
have
this
long
block
wall
on
both
sides
of
the
left
elevation.
But,
as
you
can
see
here,
there
are
more
windows
and
a
door.
I
believe
here
same
thing
applies
to
the
right
elevation
it's
no
longer
as
long
and
boring
as
the
first
as
the
original
plan
that
you
saw
on
january
12th
moving
on.
G
So
this
is
the
plan
b.
As
so
as
you
can,
you
can
see
the
recurring
theme
on
the
b
plans.
G
They
have
the
why
changes
made
to
the
original
plan
compared
to
what
you
saw
on
january
12.
As
you
can
see,
it
is
very
stacked.
The
difference
that
is,
however,
staff
has
determined
that
it
did
not
incorporate
all
the
changes
that
were
recommended
by
the
subcommittee
so
because
the
subcommittee
had
commented
that
mass
of
the
living
area
to
be
flat
roof
with
parapet
instead
of
sloped
roof.
Again,
it
was
simplified,
look
a
little
bit
more
simple,
not
as
as
busy
as
the
original
plan
shows.
However,
this
is
a
revised
one.
G
Here
are
my
size
of
the
elevation,
so,
as
you
can
see,
the
original
one
looks
a
lot
busier
and
it's
been
simplified
over
here.
G
In
this
side,
the
side
elevation
so
more
recurrent
team,
besides,
seems
to
have
been
they've
added,
more
articulations
and
more
breaks
no
longer
as
blank
as
boring
as
it
appeared
here
on
both
sides.
G
G
G
It
may
be
part
of
their
design
vernacular.
Let
the
applicants
explain
that
they
did
not
explain
that
to
me.
So.
G
G
G
These
are
the
side
elevations
and,
as
you
can
see,
there
are
more
windows
and
a
little
different
than
what
you
saw
on
january.
12.
G
G
However,
it
still
has
the
sloped
roof
and
some
flat
element,
as
asked
for
by
the
subcommittee.
G
G
So
this
is
the
floor
plans.
Here
we
have
to
my
left,
is
the
ground
floor
and
then
the
top
floor.
That's
the
original
plant
that
you
saw
on
january
12.
What
you
have
before
you
today
to
my
right
is
the
ground
floor
and
then
the
top
floor.
So
the
change
here
is
that
it
has
been
moved
backward.
It's
been
reset
backward
more
than
what
it
was
than
what
you
have
originally.
G
G
Looking
at
you
side
by
side,
the
original
one
and
the
revised
you
see
the
great
difference
here
on
the
roof
line
versus
the
flat
roof.
That's
been
incorporated
into
this
plan
comment
from
the
arc
from
the
subcommittee
meeting
was
that
they
would
like
to
see
the
bedroom
element
higher
than
the
garage
and
overhang
and
have
it
and
have
it
bang
into
it.
So
they
made
those
changes
on
this
planet.
G
So
here
are
the
there
are
more
elevations
of
plant
4a
again
the
original
plants
to
my
left
and
the
revised
plants
to
the
right.
G
G
G
G
G
G
And
finally,
the
b
slow
pattern
remains.
The
roof
lines
remains
the
same.
G
G
So,
madame
cheer
that
will
conclude
staff
presentation.
My
our
recommendation
will
be
because
of
the
issues
that
I
identified
earlier
would
be
recommended
to
the
planning
commission
to
return
this
item
to
the
subcommittee
to
go
over
the
issues
that
was
enumerated
and
have
arc
review.
The
final
proposal
for
final
approval
that
will
be
start
recommendation.
I'm
available
to
answer
your
questions
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
applicant
is
here
the
applicant
and
the
team
to
make
a
presentation
they
will
in
their
presentation.
They
have
street
view
plans.
G
A
Let
me
if
you
can
take
this
off
the
screen
for
a
minute.
Thank
you
very
much
that
thorough
presentation.
This
is
before
the
commission
for
questions.
First
of
staff
are,
and
I
can't
see,
hands
yet
until
this
comes
down.
So
if
you
have
a
question,
speak
up.
F
G
Yeah,
so
looking
at
the
three
variations
of
design
in
the
design
guidelines,
there
are
no
sloped
roofs,
so
those
rules
are
not
consistent
in
with
the
three
types
of
variations
contained
in
the
mirror
alone
design
guideline,
but
I
will
point
out
that
in
two
of
the
previous
at
least
one
of
them
of
the
previous
final
development
plans
approved
by
the
planning
commission,
specifically
for
christopher
holmes,
we
did
approve
some
homes
with
slope
rules.
G
So
those
those
are
the
the
main
concern
that
sap
has.
Unless
planning
commission
specifically
approves
it
like
it
approved
the
previous
builders
homes,
staff
will
still
remain
that
it
is
not
consistent
with
the
design
guidelines
that
and
the
fact
that
the
use
of
vinyl
was
eliminated
by
planning
commission's
action
in
march
of
2019.
G
However,
I
did
say
that
they
will
determine
they
will
make
that
determination
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
So
if,
in
this
case,
you
also
determine
that
you
are
okay
per
that
planning,
commission
condition,
the
staff
will
be
prepared
to
move
along
with
it.
A
Are
there
additional
questions?
I
have
some
if
they're
not
when
I
went,
I
went
through
the
guidelines
pretty
thoroughly
today
and
what
I
found
was
that
the
guidelines
say
simple
roofs
and
flat
roofs
on
page
27..
A
A
So
I
think
there
may
be
issues
in
terms
of
providing
that
the
envelope,
unless
you
choose
the
option
and
pay
more
money,
isn't
providing
shading
it
is,
and
I'm
gonna
am.
I
correct
in
those.
G
Yes,
you
are
correct.
That's
still
that's
that
language
is
contained
in
the
design
guidelines.
A
When
they
came
in,
we
had
a
serie,
a
number
of
very
serious
complaints
with
woodridge
that
the
windows
that
were
provided
when
they
did
the
vinyl,
I
believe
they
leaked
through
and
sand
their
sand-
was
blowing
into
the
houses
and
the
windows
were
leaking,
and
I
know
that
we,
because
I
sat
on
the
original
design
guidelines
committee
required
3,
8,
gravel
because
of
wind
conditions.
A
But
the
question
is:
how
do
we
deal
with
this?
I
talked
I
tried
to
talk
to
a
couple
of
architects
today
regarding
the
wind
blowing
the
sand
blowing
through
the
windows
and
they
suggested
hurricane
windows,
or
they
suggested
working
with
the
builders
to
figure
out
what
what
kind
of
treatment,
what
had
to
happen
to
have
those
large
sliding
windows
that
are
one
of
the
elements
of
this
actually
not
leak
sand
and
dust
into
the
houses.
A
So
that
may
be
a
question
for
mr
priest,
but
I'm
it's
something
I
think
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
and
those
those
are
the
other
one
and
is
that
all
four
sides
of
the
buildings
need
to
be
articulated,
and
that
seems
to
be
a
condition,
and
that
would
be
something
that's
before
us
as
well.
I
know
that
was
a
issue
that
was
raised
on
the
committee.
A
I
don't
know
if
it
got
resolved
on
the
subcommittee
that
there
was
enough
articulation
on
the
on
all
four
sides
of
the
building,
but
as
I
pulled
through
the
the
the
design
guidelines,
those
are
the
ones
that
I
found
and
I
was
just
wondering-
staff
if
you're
in
agreement
on
all
of
those
so.
G
As
for
the
number,
the
number
one
issue
that
you
raise,
I
think
I
will
let
this
syria
tony
pitch
in
on
that,
but
also
that
would
be
a
matter
that
you
may
want
to
discuss
with
the
applicant
when
they
make
their
presentation
so
to
discuss
the
issue
of
mitigating
wind,
a
problem
and
materials
that
are
used
so
yeah.
G
We
will
let
the
applicants
speak
to
that
and
what
they
intend
to
do
to
prevent
that
from
happening
again
and
then,
as
far
as
the
articulations
are
concerned,
looking
at
the
the
servicing
agreement
that
they
have
incorporated
a
lot
of
articulations
into
all
the
foresight
compared
to
the
first
term
go
around.
G
So,
however,
this
is
before
you
today,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
staff
recommendation
as
we'll
be
taking
this
to
the
arc
and
the
subcommittee
of
the
planning
commission
to
add
some
conditions
or
the
directions
that
you
want
to
see
in
the
final
products
when
it
goes
to
the
arc.
A
And
so
your
your
recommendation
would
be
to
take
it
back
to
the
subcommittee
with
issues
that
we
wanted
to
raise
and
also
send
those
issues
along
to
the
architectural
review
committee,
but
not
bring
this
back
to
the
the
commission
itself.
Is
that
correct.
E
Madam
chair,
I
believe
I
can
also
chime
in
the
the
three
issues
I
understand
identified
relative
to
the
design
guidelines,
the
roof
lines
and
slope
where
the
design
guidelines
do
call
out
cantilevered,
flat
roofs
or
just
flat,
roofs.
E
Mr
robertson
did
point
out
that
the
planning
commission
did
grant
a
minor
amendment
to
the
preliminary
pdd
several
years
ago,
which
removed
the
requirement
for
aluminum.
However,
it
does
say
in
minutes
that
fiberglass
is
highly
recommended.
E
I
believe
mr
robinson
touched
on
that
and
then
alternate
window
material
to
be
considered
by
the
planning
commission
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
so
that
that
was
reserved
by
the
planning
commission
and
if
the
commission
believes
that
there
is,
you
know,
a
possibility
that
alternate
materials
may
you
know,
be
insufficient
to
deal
with
leaking
sand
blowing
objects.
Things
like
that.
I
believe
the
commission
could
insist
on
a
different.
You
know
sign
off
on
a
different
material
that
it
believes.
E
Would
you
know
provide
that
proper
insulation,
besides
the
fiberglass
and
then
the
articulation
on
four
sides
that
that's
informational
and
I
agree
with
mr
robertson
if
you
want
to
talk
to
the
applicant
about
that.
Thank
you.
A
The
shading
is
also
the
shade,
that's
correct,
providing
shade.
So
if
the
applicant,
if
there
are
no
more
questions,
if
the
applicant
is
here,
I
believe
they
were
also
requested
to
provide
streetscapes
and
if
they
could
do,
the
presentation.
H
So
that
brad
chuck
heart
for
avalon
1150,
I
we
have
dan
weibel
and
colin
liu
from
robert,
heidi
architects,
who
will
give
the
presentation
to
set
expectations
properly,
and
I
will
apologize
to
committee
and
edward
edward
asked
me
earlier
today.
If
I,
if
we
had
fly-throughs-
and
we
had
prepared
those
for
the
initial
submittal,
though
we
never
presented
to
the
committee
that
day,
those
quite
frankly
are
very
cumbersome
to
produce,
and
until
we
have
a
more
refined
design
that
has
broad
consensus.
H
It's
not
effective
to
continue
to
iterate
in
that
regard.
So
the
package
that
you
see,
which
is
some
111
pages
that
which
does
include
the
elevations
for
each
and
we
have
bird's
eye
views
which
we
can
run
through,
is
the
extent
of
the
graphic
imagery,
in
addition
to
all
the
2d
images
and
everything
that
makes
up
that
more
than
100
page
document.
But
we
don't
have
the
video
that
I
misrepresented
to
edward
that
we
had.
So
I
apologize
in
advance
for
that.
A
Just
as
a
question
do
you
have
streetscapes,
we've
seen
them
for
each
of
the
other
projects
that
are
in
that
have
come
before
us,
where
they
presented
both
the
golf
course
view
of
the
houses
and
then
also
the
street
views
of
the
houses.
So
we
could
see
what
the
streets
with
your
newest
rendition
looks
like.
H
I
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
or
two
additional
statements
before
I
turn
it
over,
which
is
to
say
I
I
I
personally
believe
that
we
have
done
significant
work
and
made
very
reasonable
and
meaningful
changes
to
the
submittal
from
the
first
to
this
now
latest,
submission
and
colin
can
speak
to
some
of
the
particulars,
but
we
we
made
a
conscious
decision
to
incorporate
some
sloped
roofs
into
essentially
50
of
the
elevations,
because
we
are
finding
as
a
practical
matter
and
looking
at,
what's
currently
being
built
at
miralon
and
projecting
that
out
to
all
1150
units
that
the
idea
of
you
know
completely
going
with
flat.
H
Roofs
across
the
board
creates
a
fair
bit
of
monotony
that
we're
trying
to
to
control
and
and
avoid.
Quite
frankly-
and
you
know-
I-
I
will
say
further-
that
through
our
various
conversations
with
staff
and
the
subcommittees,
we
have
been
fairly.
We
have
been
consistent
in
showing
an
elevation
for
each
plan,
type
that
has
a
sloped
roof
and
until
today
the
first
submittal.
It
was
very
clear
that
the
version
that
we
proposed
was
not
going
to
cut
the
mustard
and
we've
worked
hard
to
simplify
those
slope.
H
So
that
said,
I
I
want
to
try
to
reframe
the
conversation
around
one
trying
to
be
as
authentic
as
possible.
Whilst
recognizing
that
we're
you
know
in
in
the
2020s,
not
the
you
know
1960s,
and
so
there
are
certain
demands
from
modern
buyers
and,
and
there
are
certain
technologies
that
exist,
that
incorporate
higher
energy
efficiencies,
and
things
like
that
that
you
know,
we've
tried
to
include
here
at
the
end
of
the
day,
while
still
offering
a
quality
product
that
creates
some
diversity
within
the
community.
H
I
Please
let
me
know
if
you
could
all
see
my
screen
that
has
the
the
site
plan
currently
out.
Okay,
great
so
again,
thank
you
all
for
your
time
this
evening
to
review
the
updated
package
for
the
50
foot
wide
products.
So
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
going
to
be
very
brief
on
my
my
presentation:
I've
broken
it
down
into
four
parts.
First,
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
the
refinements
that
we
made
to
the
site
plan
based
on
the
planning
commissioner's
comments,
as
well
as
the
comments
received
during
the
workshops.
I
Second
is
the
floor
plan.
Revisions.
Third,
are
the
is
the
elevations
the
updated
elevation
design
and
fourth
is
my
response
to
the
questions
that
I
noted
down
during
the
earlier
presentation.
So,
what's
up
on
the
screen,
it's
the
the
site
plan
and,
as
you
can
see,
that
will
work.
I
What-
and
I
will
zoom
in
lately
is
that
previously,
the
front
yard
setback
were
all
set
at
10
feet
and
this
revised
plotting
that
shows
a
variation
of
front
yard
setbacks
that
that
some,
it
ranges
from
10
to
15
feet,
depending
on
the
lock
depth
and
also
we
included
for
all
the
corner,
lock,
condition:
try
to
plot
a
plan
three
or
a
plan,
four
with
a
site
entry,
so
the
front
door
since
the
front
door
is
facing
the
side
so
we're,
rather
than
coming
in
from
the
right
side
street
we're
coming
we're
proposing
to
have
the
entry
path
coming
straight
from
the
other
street
and
then
also
one
of
the
comment
earlier,
I
heard
was
the
articulation
of
four-sided
architecture.
I
We
completely
agreed
with
that,
however,
just
looking
at
the
ways
that
these
plants
are
plotted,
they're
plotted,
10
feet
apart
in
the
middle,
where
the
garage
site
is
located.
This
is
predominantly
going
to
be
more
of
a
utilitarian
site
where
the
trash
cans
are
located,
as
well
as
the
ac
condensers.
I
However,
on
the
other
opposite
side,
that's
where
the
the
grey
room,
dining
kitchen,
as
well
as
the
entry
and
secondary
bedroom,
are
located.
That
has
a
lot
more
fenestration,
as
well
as
introducing
plane
brakes
to
provide
articulation
on
the
on
the
exposed
side,
elevation
and
that
is
held
true
for
all
the
corner
conditions.
As
much
as
we
can.
We
still
have
the
monotony
code
that
we
need
to
adhere
to,
so
that
we
don't
have
the
same
plan
and
elevation
plotted
at
every
corner.
I
So,
with
regards
to
the
floor
plans,
we've
reviewed
the
rec,
the
recommendation
for
reciprocal
site
use
easements
and
giving
that
the
fact
that
these
lots
are
50
foot
wide.
The
architecture
itself
is
40
foot
wide.
That
gave
us
a
lot
of
a
lot
more
options
to
provide
daylight
on
two
sides
of
the
dwelling,
as
opposed
to
going
to
a
receptacle
used
eastman.
Then
that
will
only
allow
us
to
have
daylight
on
one
side.
I
However,
if
you
look
at
what's
up
on
the
screen
that
giving
the
fact
that
the
san
jacinto
mountain
range
is
located
due
west
of
the
site-
and
there
are
only
a
handful
of
lots
that
has
the
the
west
facing
predominantly
this
string
of
lots
here
as
well
as
this
string
of
lots
here,
those
are
the
only
lines
that,
with
a
that,
could
take
advantage
of
the
swimming
pool,
that's
located
at
the
front
at
the
same
time
being
able
to
to
enjoy
the
sennheise
mountain
range
view.
I
So,
after
the
discussion
with
the
subcommittee
in
march,
we
decided
that
this
is
not
a.
We
abandoned
this
this
approach,
but
simply
introducing
one
additional
plant
height
to
serve
four
to
five
lots.
It's
just
economic,
economically,
not
feasible,
and
then
also
the
plan
5
and
plan
4
and
plan
5.
The
two-story
plans,
as
it
were
pointed
out
earlier.
The
second
floor
area
were
revised
to
to
be
away
from
the
front
of
the
house
to
promote
a
street
scene
comprised
predominantly
with
single-story
massing
the
plan
5
rear
elevation.
I
I
We
need
to
revise
the
building
massing
to
be
more
horizontal
and
more
lineal,
so
this
was
the
play
height
over
the
great
room
area
has
been
reduced
down
to
12
foot
tall,
12-foot
height
seating
with
transient
window
above
these,
the
these
deep
overhangs
that
we're
providing
they're
24
inches
overhang
they're
they're
in
an
attempt
to
provide
some
shade
over
the
these
windows
as
much
as
we
can
and
then
so,
but
when
it
comes
to
the
b
elevation,
I
know
that
edward
pointed
out
in
mo
and
numerous
times
in
the
in
the
presentation
that
the
bee
elevations
are
all
still
with
sloping
roofs.
I
This
is
attempt
a
our
attempt
to
provide
a
variety
in
the
building
massing
will
still,
at
the
same
time,
provide
shade
over
these
windows.
So
I'm
going
to
try
to.
I
will
pull
up
a
supplemental.
This
is.
I
So
these
these
the
sloping
roof
elevation.
Yes,
it
is
not
included
in
the
approved
maryland
design
guideline,
however,
in
an
attempt
to
provide
variation
to
the
roof
form
as
well
as
providing
shade
over
the
windows,
we
can.
We
just
simply
are
unable
to
provide
to
come
up
with
enough
variation
with
all
flat
roofs
with
overhangs
and
yet
provide
differentiation
among
these
12
elevations.
I
I'm
sorry
10
elevations
and
then
also
that,
in
keeping
with
the
the
rich
architectural
heritage
of
palm
springs,
the
mid-century
modern,
aesthetic
uses
the
the
2
and
12
roof
pitch
very
often
and
then
also
as
it
will
point
out.
Christopher
holmes,
product
and
marilyn
face.
1
do
have
sloping
roof,
they
were
approved
by
the
planning
commission
and
it
was
built.
So
that
was
the
rationale
behind
the
the
the
the
b
elevation
still
holding
on
to
a
a
sloping
roof.
I
I
One
of
the
comments
from
the
planning
commissioner,
was
to
to
extend
this.
The
enhanced
ele
enhanced
wall
material
project
at
that
out,
so
making
it
almost
like
a
false
chimney
and
we'll
and
after
studying
that
we
just
feel
like
that
feel
like
more
more
or
less
like
applied
on
element.
We
were
trying
to
be
to
make
these
elevations
very
simple,
elegant
and
timeless,
and
having
these
applied
on
disneyland
architectural
element
is
what
we're
trying
to
to
refrain
from.
I
I
The
dashed
line
represent
the
roof
ease
that
that's
covered,
so
yes,
the
area
entry,
this
entry
element
here
with
the
gate.
This
is
not,
it
does
have
a
roof
over
it.
The
only
portion-
that's
not
covered
is
this
area
here
again.
If
we
are
to
extend
this
eave
completely
over,
it
does
not
give
us
a
enough
of
an
articulation.
You
basically
have
a
flat
canopy
over
the
entire
drive
drive
entire
walkway,
and
this
is
a
plan
with
a
site
entry.
So
the
right
right
side
elevation
is
a
very
highly
visible
elevation.
A
A
Oh
one
more
question
before
we
do
that
there
was
a
recommendation
that
your
your
retainage
area
be
turned
into
a
dog
park.
What
did
you
do
with
that?.
H
Colin,
I
could
speak
to
that
yeah.
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
separate
matter
from
this
architecture.
We've
certainly
looked
at
it.
The
concern
with
that
drainage
feature
is,
it
is
intended
as
a
drainer's
feature.
The
the
slope
down
is
quite
significant
and
we're
frankly
concerned
about
the
safety
of.
We
don't
want
to
frankly
encourage
people
to
use
that
because
it's
like,
I
said
it's
intended
purposes
as
a
flood
basin,
and
it's
not
access
to
it
is
not
simple.
Thank
you.
A
Seeing
commissioner
miller.
F
Yeah
just
a
couple
comments
I
mean
I
was
not
here
on
the
commission
on
january
12th.
I
started
on
january
26th,
so
I
missed
this
when
it
came
before
the
full
commission
first,
so
I
had
to
sort
of
catch
up
to
speed
quite
a
bit.
F
I
think
there's
been
significant
improvements
made
in
the
plans
from
the
january
12th
version
till
now,
certainly,
but
I
also
have
a
great
deal
of
respect
for
the
commission
that
was
here
on
january
12th
and
for
the
subcommittee,
so
I'm
going
to
defer
to
a
great
extent
to
the
subcommittee
as
far
as
recommendations,
but
I
do
want
to
say
that
significant
improvements
have
been
made
and
so
I'll
support.
Whatever
the
majority
of
the
subcommittee
members
believe
is
appropriate.
B
I
did
not
have
enough.
I
would
just
echo
some
of
what
commissioner
miller
said
and
that
I
intend
to
listen
to
the
the
thoughts
or
opinions
of
my
colleagues
who
were
more
involved
in
the
details
and,
frankly,
who
are
better
schooled
in
architecture
than
I
will
ever
be,
because
I
respect
their
opinions
and
the
detail
with
which
they
looked
and
worked.
As
a
subcommittee
on
the
project.
D
I'm
a
member
of
the
subcommittee,
the
level
of
detail
that
the
architects
on
the
subcommittee
discussed
was
tremendous.
Very
it
was
beyond
my
capability,
certainly
because
I'm
not
an
architect.
It's
unfortunate
that
mr
hirschbein
isn't
here
today,
because
he
had
lots
of
thoughts
and
was
very
involved
in
all
of
the
discussion,
as
relates
to
the
details.
D
So,
first
of
all,
I
don't
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
send
it
back
to
the
subcommittee
at
this
point,
because
the
kinds
of
discussions
they
were
having
would
have
been
better
at
the
architectural
review
committee
level.
They
were
very
similar
and
I
think
they
could
handle
it
and
it
didn't
wouldn't
need
to
go
back
to
the
subcommittee
regarding
the
sloped
roofs.
Apparently,
we've
approved
those
in
the
past.
I
don't
know
what
the
circumstances
were.
D
I
don't
know
if
it
was
to
alleviate
the
con
the
flat
roof
everywhere,
and
I
don't
know,
but
I
I
personally
think
that
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
have
some
flat
some
slope,
roofs
to
eliminate
monotony.
A
I
can
speak
as
a
member
of
this
subcommittee
and
all
of
the
ones
before
it.
I
don't
think
they've
finished
with
the
roofs
on
the
b
plans.
Some
of
them
have
as
many
as
seven
planes
on
them
and
that
is
incredibly
busy.
You
could.
A
I
took
a
drive
today
through
toll
brothers,
which
is
selling
exceedingly
well
and
very
close
to
me,
and
if
I
see
a
slope
and
I
do
see
a
slope
variation,
I
might
see
one
sloping
up
to
the
front
or
sloping
up
to
or
sloping
to
the
back,
but
I
don't
see
seven
and
I
don't
see
the
numbers
of
variations,
so
I
think
I
think
those
roofs
still
need
more
work.
I
would
send
it
back
to
aac
with
that
recommendation.
A
I
do
think
that
the
colors
are
dated
on
this
again.
The
colors
you're
tending
to
see
that
are
selling
right
now
are
whites
and
grays
and
they're
not
tans
and
browns
they've
improved
it,
but
it's
still,
it
still
has
some
datedness
to
it
in
the
rear
yards.
The
last
time
we
had
woodbridge
in
front
of
us.
A
That's
one
thing:
that's
there.
The
other
is
the
overhangs
and
the
shading.
I
do
think
it
is
an
issue
that
they
create
the
back,
the
back
11
feet
or,
however
long
that
overhang
is
as
an
option
as
opposed
to
a
requirement.
A
I
do
that's.
The
the
building
envelope
does
not
at
this
point,
provide
shade
for
the
living
areas.
Without
that
area
being
required
to
be
covered,
I
would
have
the
aac
look
at
the
at
the
differentiation
on
all
four
sides
and
make
sure
that
they're
comfortable
with
that-
and
I
think
that's
I
think,
that's
important,
and
I
do
think
that
we
should
send
the
window
issue
to
the
aac
so
that
there
can.
A
But
I'd
absolutely
think
we
need
to
have
the
building
manufacturer
show
the
architectural
advisory
committee
that
there
will
not
be
that
kind
of
leakage
that
we've
seen
and
we
have
a
different
condition.
I
live
in
a
windy
area,
it's
been
blowing
enormously
the
last
couple
of
days
and
I
can't
imagine
what
it's
like
out
in
maryland
and
I
do
think
that
that
making
sure
that
the
materials
work
is
really
key.
A
I
think
I
missed
the
last
meeting
because
of
my
accident,
although
I
was
at
the
first
meeting
and
I
share
staff's
concern
about
the
the
roofs.
I
don't
think
absolutely
everything
needs
to
be
flat,
but
I
don't
think
there
should
be
more
than
one
one
uplift
and
not
seven
planes
as
many
as
seven
planes.
Also
from
my
point
of
view,
the
fifth
and
fourth
plans
still
need
work.
The
the
fifth
plan
that
we
were
shown,
the
back.
A
They
might
have
responded
to
the
comments
of
the
aac,
but
it's
not
attractive
on
the
back
side
of
the
building
that
very
long
flat
plane
on
a
third
of
the
building.
So
I
think,
there's
work
to
to
do
if
you
don't
want
to
send
it
back
to
the
subcommittee,
which
I
think
might
be
a
good,
a
good
start
to
have
the
people
on
the
subcommittee
work
on
these
issues.
If
you
don't
want
to
do
that,
I
think
we
should
send
it
to
the
aac.
With
these
comments.
D
Well,
okay,
then,
if
there
are
no
comments,
I
don't
think
it
should
go
back
to
the
subcommittee.
I
think
it
should
go
directly
to
the
arc
they're
capable
of
dealing
with
these
issues
as
well
as
the
subcommittee
it'll
just
add
more
time
to
this
project,
and
I
don't
think
it's
it's
necessary
because
I
believe
the
arc
can
handle
all
these
issues.
C
So,
madam
chair,
if
I
just
for
clarification
purposes
and
for
clarity
and
direction
to
the
applicant,
there
will
be
a
reduction
in
number
of
slope.
Roofs
and
I
want
just
to
hear
from
the
applicant
if
they
are
willing
to
do
that,
because
latest
plan
that
they
had
to
incorporate
some
of
those
comments
from
the
subcommittee-
and
I
think
that's
an
important
thing
to
understand
because
ultimately,
in
the
end,
the
arc
will
have
to
deal
with
this
issue.
C
So
what
we
might
do
is
ask
the
app
and
if
that
is
something
that
they're
open
to
doing
for
the
project,
because
it
seems
that,
as
though
from
there
the
comments
that
we've
heard
tonight
that
their
real
intention
is
to
keep
most
of
the
grossest
slope
for
us.
So
I'd.
Rather
let
the
action
speak
to
that
before
action
is
taken.
H
So
I
I
will
respond
from
a
non-technical
perspective.
I
think
that
we've
demonstrated
a
willingness
to
work
with
the
city's
feedback.
Thus
far.
We
will
continue
to
do
that
to
try
to
simplify,
I
I'm
and
I'm
not
quite
hearing
that
we
need
to
get
rid
of
the
slope
roots
on
the
b
elevation.
So
much
as
we
need
to
simplify
them
to
the
extent
possible,
and
we,
as
we
have
in
the
past,
will
continue
to
iterate
on
that
to
create
as
much
simplicity
as
possible.
H
I,
I
have
not
counted
the
roof
planes
on
on
the
designs,
so
to
the
extent
that
there
are
seven
and-
and
we
can
reduce
that
number
on
a
particular
plan
or
elevation,
we
can
certainly
consider
that
and
we'll
work
with
the
committee
to
create
that
you
know
greater
simplicity.
Now
I
know
colin
is
now
showing
one
of
the
plan
one
b's,
so
I
don't
know
if
connor
you're
able
to
go
through
all
of
these
or,
if
the
committee's,
even
interested
in
it.
H
But
we
will
continue
to
work
on
refining
and
simplifying
these
slope
roofs.
So
I
I
may
be
dancing
around
it
a
bit
other
than
to
say
that
we
will
continue
to
do
what
we've
been
doing,
which
is
take
the
feedback
and
synthesize
it
and
try
to
incorporate
it
as
much
as
we
can
so
that
everybody
ends
up
satisfied.
A
C
The
most
successful
plans
were
the
ones
that
don't
have
a
very
busy
roofline,
so
that
was
a
lot
of
what
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
addressing
as
a
part
of
this
this
motion.
So
it
sounds
like
the
atmosphere's
on
board
with
that.
So,
if
we
can,
you
know
with
that
understanding,
we
can
certainly
work
with
them
and
move
it
forward.
A
Let's
go
through
all
of
the
points
in
this.
The
other
is
a
path
of
travel
so
that
it's
not
a
cluttered
path
of
travel
from
somebody
leaving
the
house
and
walking
down
to
the
gate.
Don't
care
if
you
move
the
gates
so
that
it
works.
But
on
some
of
the
existing
models
that
I
went
to
see,
you
would
have
to
climb
over
created
structures
to
be
able
to
walk
down
and
go
into
the
public
space.
A
That
was
one
of
them.
The
other
one
is
just
to
have
the
arc
look
at
all
four
sides
of
the
building
and
determine
that
they're
articulated
enough
I'd
like
them
to
look
at
the
colors
and
the
color
palette,
just
to
make
sure
that
the
the
colors
that
are
being
used
right
now
are
ones
that
are
going
to
sell
and
I've
been
seeing.
Lighter.
I've
just
have
been
seeing
everybody
where
I
live,
repaint
their
their
taupes
white
gray
and
doing
something
different.
So
have
them
look
at
the
color
palette.
A
The
other
one
is
the
public
or
the
the
building
envelope
creating
shade,
and
my
concern
is
that
the
versions
of
the
plan
where
you
don't
purchase
the
additional
option
for
an
additional
cover
are
not
creating
the
kind
of
shade
you
need
for
those
back
large
windows,
and
so
I
want
them
to
look
at
that.
I
would
prefer
to
see
shade
structures,
not
as
an
option
or
if
they're
going
to
give
two
options
of
different
sizes,
but
something
with
shade.
A
And
the
last
is
the
windows,
and
I
you
know
I
know
I'm.
I
would
prefer
that
we
saw
at
least
a
fiberglass
option,
but
what
I'd
like
to
say
I'd
like
the
arc
to
look
at
the
window
choice,
whichever
way
they
go
with
it,
and
I
would
give
them
the
flexibility
to
choose.
A
A
There
being
no
comments,
can
we
have
the
role
called
please.
E
A
That's
the
motion,
but
it's
very
specific
on
those
items
in
terms
of
performance,
correct.
You
know
I
I
would
give
them.
You
know
the
engineered
block.
We
have
I'd,
give
them
a
little
bit
of
freedom
to
choose
a
couple
of
and
work
with
their
architects
to
choose
a
few
different
styles
so
that
the
buildings
look
different.
It
doesn't
look
like
the
block
is
the
same
on
every
house,
those
those
things
I
think
they
will
normally
take
on,
but
that
we've
discussed
are
the
the
key
ones
that
have
come
before
us.
A
B
G
I
D
A
I
saw
that
yesterday
and
thought
of
you
and
thanked
you
for
your
comments
in
my
mind
and
I'll.
Thank
you
tonight
anything
else,
commissioner
elaine.
Yes,.
B
I
guess
I'm
still
looking.
I
think
I
mentioned
this
at
last
meeting,
I'm
still
looking
for
a
report
on
the
pad
elevations
at
the
development,
just
south
of
ramon
and
west
of
palm
canyon,
where
there
was
some
concern.
One
of
the
commissioners
who
had
been
involved
in
the
approval
process
indicated
that
the
the
pad
elevations
looked
way
high
and
somebody
was
going
to
look
into
that
and
see
before
they
got
further
along
in
actually
building.
C
I
believe
you're
referring
to
the
milan
project
across
from
cody
place.
Yes,
it's
on
the
south
side
of
the
creek,
yes
between
bolaro
and
palm
canyon,
so
yeah
that
that
project
has
been,
as
everyone
has
seen,
underway,
they've
been
doing
rock
crushing
and
then
establishing
the
pads.
Our
engineers
have
looked
at
that.
Unfortunately,
mr
benares
is
not
here
tonight,
but
I
did
speak
with
him
before
today
about
the
project
and
the
pads
that
were
approved
in
the
grading
plan
were
for
the
planning
commission's
approval.
C
We
don't
have
pad
certifications
yet,
but
presumably
those
would
be
once
we
do
receive
the
pad
certifications
from
the
developer
that
they
should
be,
in
conformance
with
the
planning
commission
approval.
D
C
Anytime,
we
have
a
new
project
developers
or
app
or
builders
have
to
submit
certification
that
the
pad
is
per
the
approved
grading
plan,
and
so
that's
part
of
the
documents
that
are
provided
to
the
city
as
a
property
has
developed.
D
But
if
no
one,
if
no
one
goes
to
goes
and
checks,
then
how
would
they
be
on
the
line
if
it's
always
just
taken
as
their
word.
D
So
there's
our
engineers
never
go
to
make
sure
that
the
certification
is
accurate
and
we
do
that
for
the
polls
when
we
were
talking
about
having
you
know
the
the
height
poles
we
had
somebody
go
out
to
a
third
party
or
whoever
the
city.
You
verify
that
we
don't
do
that.
A
The
we
had
one
major
issue
with
pads
had
height
on
the
projects
that
was
on
ramon
west
of
palm
canyon,
and
I
think,
after
that
we
got
a
promise
that
the
pad
height
would
always
come
before
the
planning
commission,
and
it
would
be
the
kitchen
would
know
about
it.
I'm
just
wondering
we
just
approved
or
passed
through
130
homes
was
anything
dealt
with
on
those
on
pad
height,
so.
G
A
Specifically
want
to
see
them,
we
went
through
that
project
with
woodbridge
and
the
neighborhood
complaints,
so
we
actually
said
that
we
actually
wanted
the
commission
that
I
was
on
at
that
time
always
wanted
to
get
information
about
pad
height,
okay,.
C
Yeah
and
specific,
actually
to
that
project
to
the
elan
project
that,
as
a
part
of
their
final
development
plan,
they
did
come
in
and
request
changes
to
their
pads
and
they
that
was
identified.
So
the
commission
did
review
those
that
the
specifics
of
this
project
and
compared
site
sections
for
the
project
and
looked
at
what
was
approved
versus
what
the
applicant
was
requesting,
which
was
instead
of
having
several
several
stepped
pads
with
significant
retaining
walls
at
each
pad.
C
Their
request
was
to
do
more
of
a
gradual
slope
on
the
overall
project,
as
opposed
to
significant
terrain,
significant,
retaining
walls
near
the
westerly
side
of
the
project
and
having
the
houses
sit
further
down
from
the
lardo,
so
that
was
actually
something
that
was
specifically
reviewed
by
the
commission.
So
they
did
raise
those
pads
and
they
did
get
approval
from
the
commission.
A
C
C
D
I
understand
those
points:
that's
not
what
I'm
commenting
on.
What
I'm
commenting
on
is
what
will
be
built
may
not
be
exactly
what
we
ultimately
approved,
and
so
I
know
that
the
engineers
license
is
on
the
line
and
all
that
I
would
like
to
have
that
known
that
we
are
paying
attention
to
this,
because
the
issue
is
the
pads
that
are
adjacent
to
the
the
road.
D
The
main
road
are
the
ones
that
everyone
sees
when
they
drive
by,
and
they
block
views
and,
and
those
in
the
past
have
been
problematic
in
many
developments
around
the
city
and
I'm
not
convinced
that
in
every
case
they
perhaps
matched
what
we
was
approved
by
the
planning
commission
at
the
time.
So
I
just
like
to
get
that
more
verified.
C
Yes,
please
plan
your
cruises
in
august
when
we're
dark:
okay,
but
no
yeah.
We
we
no
we've,
got
a
lot
more
work
to
be
done
so
we'll
have
we
plan
on
having
a
study
session
here
soon.
C
C
I
want
to
make
sure
we
can
get
enough
and
get
business
done
and
you
know
keep
it
here
past
seven.
So.
A
And
the
next
agenda
will
be
the
one
that
I
know
I
the
one
I
know
I
will
miss
this
year.
So
hopefully
our
vice
chair
will
be
back
to
chair.
C
Yeah
we
actually
the
next
one
may
be
a
light
agenda.
The
next
one
is
one
we
might
have
a
study
session
item
on
it.
If
it
is
a
light
agenda,
so
you
won't
miss
a
whole
lot.
It
looks
like
at
this
point.
C
C
So
I
do
have
that
that
document.
As
you
probably
all
know,
there
was
a
fire
at
the
property
on
april
28th.
So
unfortunately
that
has
occurred.
C
We
understand
that
you
know
we
haven't
heard
otherwise
that
the
project
will
be
delayed
because
of
this,
but
you
know
it's
still
early,
so
we'll
see
where
that
goes,
but
in
terms
of
the
timelines,
there's,
there's
14
milestones
in
the
performance
schedule
and
I
can
share
it
with
you
now
if
you'd
like
to
see
it,
but
there's
very
specific,
especially
do
you
see
the
screen
here.
C
So
yeah,
you
see
the
performance
schedule
here.
There's
several
items
that
occurred
late
last
year
and
early
this
year,
the
most
recent
was
they
submitted
their
application
to
extend
entitlements.
On
march
1st,
they
did
submit
other
documents
to
the
city
to
show
that
they're
they're
demonstrating
substantial
progress
on
construction
plans
and
then
in
june
they
will
have
to
submit
complete
construction
documents
to
the
city.
C
C
C
The
council
is
also
doing
their
12-month
review
of
the
vip
motors
vehicle
storage
lot
on
matthew
drive
and
those
are
really
the
kind
of
main
items
that
are
playing
related.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much.
That
being
said,
I'm
happy
to
say
I'm
going
to
adjourn
this
meeting,
not
our
shortest
meeting,
but
quite
short,
until
5
30
on
wednesday
may
25th
2022
wishing
you
all
a
very
good
two
weeks.
Thank
you.