►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting | November 7, 2018
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
C
A
A
D
A
Second
Oh
in
favor,
aye,
okay,
public
comment.
This
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
Planning
Commission
on
consent,
calendar
and
other
agenda
items
and
items
of
general
interest
within
the
subject
matter.
Jurisdiction
of
this
commission.
Please
note
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
prohibited
from
taking
action
and
items
not
listed
on
the
posted
agenda.
Members
of
the
public,
who
would
like
to
comment
on
items
1a,
1b,
2a
and
4a
are
directed
to
comment
under
this
section
of
the
agenda
that
covers
every
section
of
the
agenda.
A
So
if
any
member
of
the
public
wishes
to
address
the
Commission
now
is
the
time
to
rather
than
I'm
sorry,
three
eight
and
four
yes
there
being
no
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
address
the
Commission
public
comment
is
closed,
were
in
consent.
Calendar.
The
first
item
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
September
26
2008
een,
monsieur
Cal
ordained.
Yes,.
D
Madam
chair
I
have
one
correction
of
the
minutes
and,
from
my
perspective,
it's
a
little
important
just
a
single
word
change,
but
it's
on
page
7
of
the
minutes
where
we
have
all
of
our
suggestions
for
consideration
by
the
developer
undermine
vice
of
bullet
number.
Three.
We
want
to
replace
the
word
trailhead
with
the
word
under
crossing
or
under
crossing
and
trailhead.
My
intent
with
the
comment
there
was
that
I
thought
the
under
crossing
was
extremely
important,
that
it's
not
to
say
that
the
trailhead
is
not
like.
A
A
E
B
F
A
E
C
H
Madam
chair
and
planning
commissioners,
this
item
is
a
request
to
install
a
new
gate
at
the
entry
to
the
property,
the
nine
unit
apartment
property
located
at
600,
North,
Bilardo
Road.
The
proposed
gate
would
be
set
back
from
the
lardo
Road
entry
property
line,
13
feet,
as
you
see
here
on
the
site
plan
and
would
also
include
a
maneuvering
area
for
a
vehicle
to
enter
the
site
and
exit.
Should
they
not
gain
entry
to
the
property
through
the
gate,
as
well
as
a
keypad
to
access
residents
of
the
apartment
complex.
H
So
staff
reviewed
this
in
accordance
with
the
zoning
code
sections.
Ninety
three
point:
zero.
Six.
Ninety
three
point:
zero:
five
of
the
zoning
code
and
reviewed
these
the
proposal
with
the
engineering
and
fire
departments
they
have
the
fire
traffic.
Excuse
me,
the
city
engineer
has
worked
with
the
applicant
to
get
the
design
to
where
it
currently
is
to
ensure
that
it
meets
the
standards
of
maneuvering
exit
and
other
ancillary
requirements.
H
D
I
D
H
H
Yeah
so
with
the
the
gate
itself
being
installed
were
adjacent
to
where
the
the
maneuvering
area
is
to
get
to
the
keypad,
they
would
lose
one
parking
space,
but
the
park,
the
property
at
being
a
nine
unit
apartment
complex
with
two
bedrooms
in
each
unit,
would
require
a
total
of
sixteen
spaces
with
the
parking
lot,
with
a
loss
of
the
one
space
or
b21
remaining
spaces.
So
there
would
still
be
adequately
parking.
H
D
H
Could
also
just
I
would
also
just
note
that
when
we
worked
with
the
applicant
initially,
he
had
considered
doing
an
entry
on
the
southerly
side
of
the
driveway
challenge,
with
doing
it
at
that
location
was
there's
an
existing
fire
hydrant
that
is
directly
located
at
that
location.
So
it's
it's.
It
became
a
challenge
for
creating
a
maneuvering
area
on
the
south
side
of
the
driveway,
as
opposed
to
the
north
side.
Plus,
you
did
not
want
to
remove
an
existing
palm
tree
that
it
was
existing
their.
B
E
Was
just
for
clarification
where
the
entry
can
keep
had
is:
is
that
a
wall,
a
solid
wall?
That's
directly
adjacent
to
it?
Yes,
that's
a
solid
wall.
Okay
and
just
out
of
curiosity.
This
is
just
an
exploratory
question.
The
there's
where
that
solid
wall
is
there
was
landscaping.
Previous,
that's
being
removed
and
I'm
wondering
if
there
was
an
opportunity
to
catch
to
pick
up
any
landscaping
behind
the
sidewalk
and
I
see
we
have
26
feet,
but
before
the
car
without
hurting
the
turning
radius,
it
would
be
back
of
sidewalk
on
the
property,
private
property.
E
H
F
David
it's
it's
stated
that
this
is
a
tubular
steel
gate.
F
H
Believe
it's
a
standard
vertical
picket
fence.
It
doesn't
have
any
additional
detail
and
beyond
what
they
they've
provided
in
the
front
elevation,
though
I
don't
see
that
it
would
match
the
existing
trash
enclosure,
because
it
that
looks
like
it's
actually
a
metal
gate
with
screening
slats
installed.
So
it's
actually
probably
prevent
to
that.
Okay,
thanks.
A
H
H
A
H
H
H
E
B
A
F
F
F
Anyway,
my
point
is
I'm
I
I'm,
very
much
agreeing
with
commissioner
woods
on
this,
and
I
would
like
to
propose
maybe
an
alternate
solution
from
this
photograph.
There's
a
lot
of
paving.
For
you
know
the
driveway
in
the
parking
area,
which
is
fine,
the
driveway
after
the
gate
is
added,
will
be
unnecessarily
wide.
So
I
agree
with
Commissioner
woods
that
eliminating
a
portion
of
the
hardscape
south
of
the
driveway
would
be
would
be
a
good
thing.
D
How
this
will
operate?
Will
the
residents
have
to
go
through
the
sort
of
the
bypass
system
that
you're
putting
in
there?
So
they'll
have
a
clicker
that
would
open
the
gate
and
they
will
sit
there
and
go
straight
in
only
guess,
and
we
probably
need
a
condition
then
for
signage,
clear
signage.
That
says
you
know
resident
guests
and
residents
and
go
this
way
in
that
way.
D
C
Madam
chair,
if
I
might
just
interject
here,
I
would
like
to
avoid
any
additional
signage
on
the
exterior
of
the
property.
If
we
could
looking
at
a
similar
example,
tangerine
court,
which
is
up
at
the
corner
of
Vista,
Chino
and
North
Palm
Canyon,
is
a
similar
situation,
does
not
have
any
signage
there.
It's
quite
clear
from
the
call
box,
if
you
will
that
that's
where
guests
go
to
key
in
the
code
to
gain
access
to
the
property
I,
don't
know
that
signage
is
necessarily
needed.
Residents
will
understand
where
they
need
to
go
residents.
D
D
H
Yeah,
and
just
just
for
informational
purposes,
when
you
look
at
the
aerial
view
of
the
property
and
the
surrounding
area,
all
of
the
single-family
homes
on
the
west
side
of
Bilardo
have
a
gate.
This
is
one
of
the
few
properties
on
lardo
in
this
block
that
does
not
have
a
gate.
They
obviate
the
properties
to
the
north,
do
not
on
the
east
side.
A
A
A
C
A
A
Is
item
three
Woodridge
Pacific
Group
LLC,
requesting
approval
of
final
development
plans
for
a
forty
four
unit,
single-family
residential,
our
444
single-family
residential
units
from
a
previously
approved
Colima
nary
development
district
in
phase
one
of
the
maryland
development
located
at
801
sunrise
way
and
in
this
instance,
in
addition
to
staff
report,
we
also
have
a
subcommittee
and
I.
Don't
know
if
it'd
be
helpful
to
have
the
subcommittee
give
a
report,
Commissioner
Hudson,
so
staff
report
and
then
we'll
have
the
subcommittee
and
then
we'll
okay.
I
All
right,
Thank,
You
Jeremy,
can
remember
good
afternoon
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
so
on
January
25.
That
was
the
first
time
that
this
item
was
are
brought
before
the
Commission
and
at
that
meeting
the
Commission
felt
that
the
final
plans
we
are
not
in
substantial
conformance
with
the
preliminary
PD
now
the
mirror
alone
development
design
guidelines
and
so
directed
the
applicants
to
make
some
revisions
to
the
plan
and
record
the
applicant
to
bring
back
the
final
plans.
So
the
applicant
did
so
and
so
on.
I
October
10,
the
Planning
Commission
reviewed
the
revised
plans,
but
were
not
satisfied
that
all
the
concerns
and
comments
and
recommendations
have
been
met,
and
so
the
Planning
Commission
informed
a
three-person
subcommittee
made
up
of
vomit
members,
Hudson
and
Hodgman
to
work
with
the
applicant,
so
that
those
comments
and
concerns
and
recommendations
can
be
incorporated
into
the
final
development
plans.
The
subcommittee
met
with
the
applicant
on
two
occasions
and
the
last
meeting
was
on
October
23
2018.
I
At
that
meeting,
the
subcommittee
thanked
the
applicant
for
improvements
made
to
the
plans,
but
had
additional
comments
relative
to
some
specific
components
or
aspects
of
the
plant.
So
I
will
take
a
minute
to
go
through
some
of
those
comments
and
concerns
of
the
subcommittee.
So,
overall
again,
the
subcommittee
felt
that
improvements
have
been
made,
however,
that
on
plan
1a,
that
there
should
be
two
types
of
materials
used
and
on
plan
1b,
the
subcommittee
felt
that
the
legs
and
columns
of
the
cabanas
that
have
been
proposed.
We
are
too
thick.
I
They
ought
to
be
reduced
in
sizes
and
also
that
the
Cabana
roof
and
eyebrow
should
be
on
different
planes
to
create
a
better
variation
for
those
plans
on
plan
1c,
specifically,
the
subcommittee
felt
that
the
Cabana
roof
should
be
lowered
and
that
the
applicant
should
consider
using
metal
instead
of
a
smooth
shower
finish
on
face
years.
Also
that
it
happen,
elects
to
be
pulled
in
front
of
wall
or
inside
of
the
front
block
wall
and
at
the
accent
paving
on
driveways
should
be
in
line
with
glass
of
garage
doors.
I
Also
that
the
applicant
should
make
the
front
door
on
plan
one
see
four
different
panels
and
finally,
on
plan,
one
see
that
the
applicant
should
use
translucent
glass
get
those
four
provide
additional
variations
on
plant
to
be
the
subcommittee
suggested
or
recommended
to
the
applicant.
The
riblets
on
those
plants
should
be
made
of
stainless
steel
on
plan
3a.
The
applicants
was
asked
to
use
different,
paving
details
to
provide
a
variety
on
the
driveways
and
an
unplanned
one.
I
On
plan
3c,
the
applicant
was
asked
to
use
separate
block
wall
from
below
from
both
foamed
concrete
wall
and
unplanned
for
a
B
and
C.
The
applicant
was
asked
to
remove
stucco
from
underneath
windows
on
the
second
floor
and
also
to
make
the
windows
more
operable
in
line
with
plan
for
B
and
on
plan
5b.
The
applicant
was
asked
to
add
gates
in
the
courtyard
area
so
that
that
area
could
be
more
functional.
I
I
The
applicant
was
asked
to
review
the
Maryland
design
guidelines
to
make
sure
that
the
selection
of
straight
trees,
consistent
with
those
approved
or
previously
only
design
guidelines
and
the
applicant
was
also
asked
to
consider
using
or
to
have
a
preference.
The
subcommittee
will
relate
a
preference
for
plants
that
will
attract
bees,
butterflies
birds
such
as
the
desert,
Mick
wood.
So
so
those
were
just
the
accept
or
a
summary
of
the
comments
and
directions
given
to
the
applicant.
So
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
revised
plan
that
responded
to
those
comments.
I
I
will
when
the
applicant
comes
up,
he
will
be
discussing
those
staff
has
reviewed.
The
revised
higher
plants
and
staff
has
determined
that
over
all
that
they
are
in
substantial
confirmands
with
the
design
guidelines
and,
of
course,
the
directions
and
recommendations
given
by
the
subcommittee
and
the
Planning
Commission,
and
finally,
staff
will
be
recommending
that
the
Planning
Commission
should
find
to
these
plans
to
be
in
substantial
conformity
with
the
Maryland
design
guidelines
and
the
preliminary
plans
for
this
project
and
approved
project.
I
F
Yeah,
thank
you.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
apologize
for
being
late.
It's
I
know
everyone's
time
is
valuable,
so
I
apologize
again.
This
subcommittee,
as
Edward
mentioned,
we
did
meet
twice
with
the
applicant
and
had
actually
a
very
quick
turnaround
by
the
architect
and
the
team
members
to
basically
redesign
or
augment
the
design
of
several
of
the
models,
and
they
did
actually
add
a
digital
model
of
house
type
with
a
small
courtyard
I
think
they
were
such
a
great
number
of
changes
made
just
in
terms
of
proportion.
F
It
was
it's
not
an
easy
thing
to
have
to
sort
of
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
redesign
things
when
so
deadline
looming,
but
I
think
everybody
was
very
cooperative
and
I
think
actually,
more
importantly,
the
final
design,
the
the
outcome
is,
is
a
much
much
better
product
for
the
developer.
Thank
you.
A
A
J
Yeah
Todd
Cunningham,
both
Woodbridge
specific
group
I,
want
to
thank
the
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
that
were
involved
in
the
workshop
subcommittee,
because
that
was
a
you
know.
It
was
a
lot
of
time
for
them
and
it
was.
It
was
certainly
time
for
us,
but
the
outcome,
I
think
is,
is
pretty
good
products.
So
we're
pleased
with
the
process
and
and
appreciate
the
time
taken
to
do
that
very
much.
I
I
think
if
I
could
just
go
up
there
and
point
at
things
rather
than
try
to
explain
from
here
I.
J
Look:
okay,
I'm,
going
back
to
the
last
Planning
Commission
meeting,
not
the
last
subcommittee
meeting
in
terms
of
talking
about
changes.
So
one
of
the
things
on
the
site
plan
that
we
did
several
things
we
did
on
site
plan.
We
added
an
additional
single
story
house
on
the
west
side.
Prior
we
had
a
two-story
house
in
a
single
story
house
and
was
pretty
much
two-story.
One
story,
two
story:
one
story,
two
story:
one
story
has
got
to
be
very
repetitive,
so
adding
in
another
single
story
broke
up
that
repetition
monotony.
J
If
you
want
the
other
thing
we
did
on
the
two-story
house,
when
we
had
the
two
plans
on
the
west
side,
the
garages
were
all
on
the
left
side
of
the
house,
so
there's
repetition
that
every
house
on
the
west
side
had
a
garage
on
the
same
side
of
the
house.
What
we
did
is
we
redesigned
the
two-story
house,
so
the
garage
was
on
the
opposite
side.
So
now
we
have
a
garage
left
side,
left,
side,
left
side
right
side
right
side.
J
You
know
right
side
right
side,
so
they
so
there's
the
the
garage
configuration
Longstreet
changes
on
the
east
side.
We
we
in
order
to
break
it
up
as
best
as
we
could,
as
we
had
the
we
have
these
homes
with
garages
on
the
right
side,
and
then
we
flip
right
here
to
the
left
side.
We
can't
alternate
it
just
doesn't
work
with
the
zero
lot
line
in
the
front
swimming
pools.
J
So
one
other
thing
we
did
on
the
on
the
east
side
was
to
pull
a
covered
area
here
out
and
make
it
into
a
Cabana
pergola
in
the
front
of
the
house.
So
that
makes
the
front
of
the
house
look
completely
different
than
the
plan.
One
looks
completely
different
than
the
planned
two
from
the
street
and
we'll
get
into
that
with
the
elevations.
So
that's
pretty
much
the
changes
we
made
for
street
scenes.
You
can
see
the
cabanas
on
the
front
over
here
too.
J
This
is
just
more
of
the
same
Street.
This
is
the
plan
one
and
you
can
see
the
cabana
pulled
to
the
front
of
the
house.
We
added
the
block
here.
We
had
stucco
and
we
added
blocks,
so
we
get
the
stucco
on
the
block
with
the
Cabana,
so
we
get
the
variation
in
the
material
in
the
front
of
the
house,
but
still
a
front
pool.
We
cleaned
up
the
parapet,
break
going
from
the
garage
area
to
the
back
of
the
house,
which
is
a
10
foot
interior.
J
J
It's
got
its
got
a
material
on
here
that
gave
Edward
that
we
can
pass
around,
but
there
is
a
masonry
type
material
in
the
front
of
this
house,
along
with
the
block
and
then
there's
some
louvers
here
and
and
so
we
went
through
the
work
for
the
subcommittee
and
redesigned
this
several
times
and
got
it
I
think
to
where
everybody's
pretty
happy
with
it
and
then
on
the
plan.
1C
again,
this
is
the
Cabana
we
added
instead
of
here
where
we
have
louvers.
J
We
went
to
some
translucent
glass
panels
with
gate
here
that
would
mimic
that
the
other
thing
we
did
and
we
can
it'll
show
up
here-
is
we
use
three
different
garage
patterns.
Now
we
have
work
with
pervious
material,
so
we
have
the
pavers
going
across
on
this
elevation
like
that
on
this
one,
it's
actually
a
picture
frame
which
kind
of
mimics
the
garage
door
picture
frame.
J
J
This
is
actually
just
a
rendering
of
the
rear
of
the
homes.
One
of
the
one
of
the
changes
we
made
was
to
make
some
offsets
in
the
back
of
the
homes
and
as
well
as
some
additional
covered
areas,
and
so
there's
a
lot
more
articulation
on
the
back
of
all
these
homes
than
they
were
the
last
time
that
the
general
Planning
Commission
saw
this.
This
is
the
plan
and
it's
the
elevation.
You
can
see
that
strong
linear
element
right
here
and
a
clean
pair
of
it
behind
it.
J
J
J
J
We
add
this
is
the
CEO
of
agency
elevations.
We
added
this
is
a
board
form
concrete
element
that
goes
on
the
house.
So
it's
horizontal
and
I've
got
a
small
sample
of
that
there
that
you
can
see
the
wood
graining
in
the
concrete,
and
then
we
pop
this
up
a
little
bit
to
make
this
element
a
little
bigger.
We
separated
these
this
return
here
from
the
block
wall,
so
they
didn't
come
together.
The
block
wall
and
the
gate.
These
windows
are
set
back
a
foot
and
go
all
the
way
to
the
to
the
ground.
J
So
that's
a
change,
very
strong
element
to
the
house
and
then
on
the
two-story.
We
completely
redesigned
the
two-story
homes.
The
like
I,
said
we
reversed
the
garage
door
to
the
other
side
of
the
house
so
that
we
had
two
alternating
garage
door
locations.
We
added
all
this
glass
up
here
at
the
top
on
this
a
particular
ovation.
We
added
this
element
that
pops
out
and
wraps
back
we
narrowed
down
the
the
second
floor.
It's
a
complete
redesign,
I
I
think
it
looks
great
then,
on
the
B
elevation.
J
We
we
did
similar
elements
here
with
this
element
up
above
and
then
step
back
and
then
some
more
articulation
on
the
side.
And
then
in
this
case
we
get
the
corner
glass
where
it
comes
over
and
turns
back
and
then
the
wood
element
and
you've
got
an
example.
That's
not
wood,
it's
a
porcelain,
tile
but
gets
applied,
and
then
this
corner
window
is
set
in,
and
this
is
the
plan
for
C,
which
is
a
different
solution
to
the
second
floor.
J
And
this
is
the
new
plan,
the
single
story.
On
the
east
side,
the
plan
three
on
the
side
single
story
has
an
entry
around
the
side.
This
one
has
an
entry
into
a
courtyard.
This
is
the
masonry
element
on
the
front
of
that
house,
and
then
this
is
the
the
b5b
which
has
the
corner
window,
that
wraps
back
a
gate
and
then
there's
a
courtyard
on
the
interior.
You
can
and
then
this
is
the
C
which
has
the
board
form
concrete.
J
The
one
foot
setback
that
drops
all
the
way
to
the
to
the
ground
trying
to
go
through
this
as
quickly
as
I
can
and
then
the
landscaping
we
talk
about
that.
We
have
different
block
elements
on
2a,
3a
and
4a.
It's
a
staggered
on
the
plan,
3b,
it's
a
square
stacked
and
then
on
the
1,
B
2,
C,
3,
C
and
4c.
J
It's
an
elongated
stack,
so
we
vary
the
block
on
as
to
the
side
returns
to
the
gates
or
in
the
on
the
homes
on
the
east
side
that
have
the
pools
in
the
front
with
block
walls.
That's
how
we
vary
that
that
design
element
from
elevation
elevation,
and
then
we
got
the
landscaping.
We
can
look
at
so
those
as
brief
as
they
could
are.
The
changes
that
we
made
well.
A
A
C
Don't
have
a
specific
requirement
in
our
code.
We
take
direction
from
the
US
Postal
Service
in
terms
of
the
number
of
boxes.
Let
us
do
this.
Let
us
work
with
the
applicant
on
the
location
of
those
so
that
they
integrate
well
with
the
landscape
plan,
and
so
that
residents
are
not
inconvenienced
by
having
to
go
too
far
to
obtain
their
mail
and.
J
D
J
D
D
May
have
missed
this
on
previous
plans,
but
I'm
on
the
conceptual
site
plan
on
page
2
of
6.
We've
got
this.
What
I've
noticed
for
the
first
time
you
seen
the
existing
knee
wall,
the
backyards
I
guess
that
was
where
the
old
backyard
fence
was
when
it
was
gonna,
be
the
golf
course
I
didn't
realize
that
was
existing
until
I
looked
at
the
aerials
and
it
does
some
sort
of
knee
wall
there
and
there
is
and
I
wonder
what
your
plans
were.
D
G
Took
art
with
three
whole
communities:
the
master
developer
of
Maryland,
with
respect
to
the
small
pony
wall
in
the
back?
Yes,
that
is
a
legacy
facility
that
was
installed
by
the
previous
developer.
We
have
this
idea
of
a
exclusive
use
easement
for
each
of
the
Lots,
the
back
to
open
space.
We
have
a
detail
that
would
allow
the
Builder
to
cut
a
notch
in
that
wall
to
bring
down
a
portion
of
it
to
essentially
grade
to
allow
for
pedestrian
access
out
the
back
without
having
to
step
over
anything.
So.
D
G
G
D
D
D
G
It's
it's,
it
would
be
a
footpath
at
the
discretion
of
the
homeowner
and
then
we're
not
we're
not
constructing
a
path
per
se.
These
are
relatively
gentle
slopes
down
in
in
most
instances
and
again,
it
was
simply
to
provide
that
the
whole
point
of
the
exclusive
use
easement
area
was
to
push
the
view
fence
down
below
the
sight
lines
in
rear
yards
to
help
homeowners
enjoy
the
view
of
the
Groves
as
they
they
evolved
over
time.
A
Correct
it
was
the
request
we
made
and
I
think
the
subcommittee
didn't
reiterate
it.
When
we
were
given
the
timeline
on
this,
we
didn't.
We
didn't
reinforce
that
or
require
people
to
a
developer,
to
bring
it
in
I
think
we
were
satisfied
that
there
were
enough
changes
in
the
street
scene
that
we
were
comfortable
with
it.
I
think
is
that
fair
I.
F
A
A
It's
the
first
time
we
saw
the
the
gates
and
on
this
particular
one
I
I,
think
the
gate
should
mirror
the
simplicity
of
the
side
gate
that
b2
it
takes
I,
think
it
sort
of
competes
with
the
garage
doors
and
I
would
prefer
that
to
be
simple.
If
that's
something
that
is
acceptable
to
you
and
your
architect,
yeah.
A
A
E
E
Just
don't
like
the
fact
that
unplanned
one
as
an
example
for
plan,
one
you've
got
some.
What
I
want
to
call
peekaboo
features.
You've
got
the
little
glass
features
and
you've
got
the
little
louver
two
perforated
feature
on
the
the
pool
wall.
A
plan
to
doesn't
have
anything.
It's
just
a
blank
wall,
it
doesn't
even
have
vines
on
it,
so
I
will
approve
it
and
I.
Thank
everyone,
but
I
just
am
NOT
a
big
fan
of
applying
to
thanks.
F
I'd
like
to
just
echo
all
of
the
Commissioner
would
statements,
maybe
maybe
too
well
I,
don't
know
I
like
it
still
I
think
it'll
be
nice
with
that
courtyard
beyond
and
I'm
sure
the
courtyard
will
have
quite
a
bit
of
landscaping
to
to
give
that
house
some
character.
I'll
just
reiterate:
I'll
be
very
quick
I
just
like
to
thank
the
applicant
again,
the
architect.
Everyone
involved,
I,
think
it's
gonna
be
a
very
exciting
project
and
I
can't
wait
to
take
a
tour
of
the
model
homes
thanks.
D
Really
not
much
to
say
other
than
to
echo
again
echo
echo
echo
the
comments
here
that
this
is
a
really
good
example
like
a
couple
of
other
recent
projects
that
we're
done
with
a
subcommittee
process
has
worked
very
well
in
terms
of
I.
Think
really
improving
the
design
of
these
projects
and
I'm
glad
to
see
that
the
other
architects
on
the
Commission
here
getting
double
duty.
I
really
don't
have
any
other
comments
that
want
to
make
advancers
and
all
my
questions.
A
And
with
that
and
the
other
change
was
the
one
change
on
page
36
on
5b,
just
simplify
the
front
door
of
the
front
gate
to
the
Courtyard
and
with
that
I
this
one
question
for
Flynn.
This
has
a
condition
in
it
that
the
landscape
goes
back
to
the
AAC.
Is
that
because
we
don't
have
a
plan
for
the
landscape
or
because,
because
we
have
renderings
but
no
plan,
no.
C
It's
because
we
want
to
review
the
final
landscape
plans,
in
conformance
with
the
conditions
that
both
the
AAC
and
you
have
placed
on
the
project.
We
discussed
the
fact
that,
in
terms
of
the
materials
to
attract
birds,
butterflies,
etcetera,
we
just
want
to
review
that
last
final
version
of
the
landscape
plan.
So.
D
D
A
A
A
C
A
C
To
modifying
the
entitlement
process
to
send
applications
to
the
Planning
Commission
first
for
land
use
approval
and
then
to
the
AAC
for
architectural
review.
When
the
Planning
Commission
reviewed
the
recommendations
of
the
ad
hoc
PDD
committee,
they
made
a
slight
modification
that
you
can
see
there
in
the
red
and
what
the
Planning
Commission
had
recommended
is
that
Planning
Commission
reviewed
development
standards
and
conceptual
architectural
design.
First
then
forward
to
the
AAC
for
architectural
review
and
then
return
it
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
final
review,
and
so
that
was
the
recommendation
of
the
Planning
Commission.
C
You
may
see
to
these
processes
as
well
as
any
other
way
that
you
might
want
to
look
at
the
process
in
terms
of
the
current
process.
You
see
that
in
the
very
last
line
and
that's
relative
to
our
review
process,
that
AAC
is
the
first
or
the
step
one
in
the
process
where
they
review
the
architecture
and
then
forward
it
to
the
Planning
Commission
step.
Two
is
Planning
Commission
review
where
you
review
the
site
plan
and
development
standards,
and
then
you
approve
the
architecture
at
that
stage.
So
that
is
our
process.
C
Currently,
what
has
been
recommended
by
the
ad
hoc
PDD
subcommittee
is
option
number
one
where
the
Planning
Commission
would
review
the
site
plan
and
the
development
standards
and
approve
those
at
that
point
in
time
and
then
conditionally
approve
the
architecture
subject
to
AAC
approval
step.
Two
would
then
be
the
AAC
review
where
they
would
review
the
architecture,
take
into
consideration
any
comments
of
the
Planning
Commission,
and
then
that
would
be
the
final
part
of
the
process.
C
Option
number
two
reflects
the
comments
of
the
Planning
Commission
relative
to
the
PD
D
recommendations
where
Planning
Commission
would
have
the
review
they
would
approve
the
site
plan.
Take
an
initial
look
at
the
architecture.
Aac
would
then
review
the
architecture,
and
then
we
would
bring
it
back.
The
Planning
Commission
to
review
what
the
AAC
had
done,
and
so
that
was
option
number
two
in
the
process.
You
can
see
some
pros
and
cons
there
again.
C
One
of
the
things
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
mindful
of
is
the
number
of
steps
in
the
process
that
you
know
as
it
is.
Many
of
our
applicants
go
through
multiple
meetings
of
the
AAC
and
the
Planning
Commission
right
now,
and
as
we
think
about
modifications
to
the
process,
how
could
we
shorten
that
down?
C
Also
another
thing
I'd
like
to
look
at
I
had
a
request
to
provide
to
you
the
process
that
Santa
Monica
uses
and
so
I
provided
a
handout
to
you
there
at
your
seats
and
Commissioner
Hudson.
If
I'm
failed,
you
have
that
okay
I,
provided
that
too,
if
you'd
like
me
to
look
at
any
other
cities
in
terms
of
their
process,
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
do
that
and
provide
that
information
to
you.
C
So
again,
this
is
just
an
initial
stage:
I'm
looking
for
direction
from
the
Planning
Commission
as
to
what
we
might
want
to
investigate
and
then
how
we'd
like
to
move
forward
with
that.
So
that
concludes
my
presentation
at
this
point,
I'd
like
to
hear
your
discussion,
questions
comments
and
direction.
D
I
had
some
concerns
about
this
back
when
we
in
the
PDE
committee
I
think
fundamentally,
the
Planning
Commission
has
got
to
be
responsible
for
the
approval
of
the
final
architecture
unless
we
can
really
change
the
structure
of
the
structure
of
the
committees.
The
if
the
architectural
review
committee
is
really
going
to
be
the
final
approving
Authority
for
architecture
as
opposed
to
this
body,
then
I
think
that
should
be
a
city
council
appointed
committee,
so
that
it's
closer
to
the
council
I,
really
think
it
probably
is
best
to
leave
it
the
way
it
is
there.
D
We
are
the
final
authority
and
the
architectural
committee,
and
it
recognizes
recommendations
to
us,
but
I
would
be
very
concerned
about
any
proposal.
That
would
say
the
architectural
advisory
committee
would
have
a
final
plan,
a
final
approval
over
architecture
or
any
other
major
elements
of
the
design
without
a
Planning
Commission
final
approval,
I.
A
Just
want
to
speak
because
I,
the
reason
we
have
Santa
Monica
in
front
of
us
is
that
I
served
for
six
years
in
Santa
Monica
and
we
had
a
very
different
structure
and
it
worked
beautifully.
We
had
a
Planning
Commission
that
looked
at
site
plans,
massing
entitlements,
discretionary
approvals,
but
then
the
architecture
and
could
make
it
could
and
did
make
comments
on
the
architecture.
But
the
architecture
went
to
an
advice
to
a
body
that
was
appointed
by
the
council
that
had
final
approval
on
architecture.
A
It
only
came
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
if
the
applicant
appealed
the
decision
of
the
AAC
and
the
Planning
Commission's
decision
was
final
during
the
years
that
I
was
there
I
think
we
only
had
one
or
two
appeals
in
six
years.
The
designs
that
came
out
were
great
and
we
didn't
have
the
confusion
of
an
AAC
working
with
something
before
the
site
plan
and
the
uses
the
massing
had
been
approved
and
I.
A
Think
here
it's
it's
a
difficulty,
the
other
thing
and
that
we
didn't
have
to
do
is
we
didn't
have
to
have
architects
necessarily
on
the
Planning
Commission,
because
the
idea
was
approving
the
discretionary
approvals
and
the
hard
architectural
lifting
was
done
at
a
body
that
was
appointed
by
the
council.
It
was
easier
on
our
applicants.
I
never
thought
the
designs
came
out,
I
mean
I
thought
what
came
out
of
it
was
really
very
good.
A
The
part
of
the
reason
I
like
that,
as
opposed
to
what
we
do
now,
is
exactly
what
happened
to
applicants
in
this
process,
which
is
they
went
through
a
couple
meetings
of
AAC
and
then
threw
us
in
several
meetings
and
it
added
months
to
the
timeline,
and
yet
what
we
had
here
was
very
important.
It's
an
important
development.
It's
important
that
it's
done
right,
so
I,
you
know,
I
do
think
it
would
require
a
fundamental
change.
A
I
think
the
other
change
would
be
to
do
the
site
plan
first
and
then
send
it
to
AAC
and
then
do
finals
here.
I
think
you
have
to
do
one
or
the
other,
but
it
I've
watched
a
a
sea
struggle
and
I
think
there
was
the
curve
hotel
was
was
one
of
my
examples
where
people
didn't
know
what
what
the
ultimate
structure
was
going
to
be
looking
like
when
they
had
to
work
on
designs,
and
they
were
working
on
designs
where
the
structure
didn't
necessarily
get
approved
by
the
Commission
later
I
think
Chris
Pardo's
hotel.
A
F
You
know
I
I'm
sort
of
torn
on
this
I
I
do
want
to
make
the
process
much
clearer,
more
streamlined,
especially
for
the
applicants,
but
just
to
point
out
Santa
Monica.
Obviously,
ISM
is
a
larger
city,
I
mean
in
a
larger
metropolitan
area
and
has
a
much
larger
number
of
Architects
to
draw
for
the
architectural
architectural
committee,
as
does
as
a
comparable,
City,
West
Hollywood.
Let's
say
you
know,
there's
there's
dozens
and
dozens
of
architects
in
that
pool.
F
You
know
we
have
good
architects
here
as
well.
I,
don't
I
hope
so,
but
there's
just
not
quite
as
many
people
and
I
think
for
an
AAC
that
you're
type
that
you're
referring
to
Kathy,
that
you
would
need
some
really
strong
individuals
and
sometimes
I
I-
think
we
do
have
some,
especially
especially
now
increasingly
so
some
strong
individuals
on
AAC
but
I
think
in
order
to
do
option
number
one
I
think
we
would
really
have
to
have
a
good,
strong,
AAC
I
would
sort
of
like
to
pause.
F
It,
though,
that
maybe
there's
a
hybrid
I,
don't
think
as
part
of
this
process.
The
role
of
a
subcommittee,
architectural
subcommittee
of
the
Planning
Commission,
as
stated
I,
think
step.
One
definitely
should
be.
You
know
the
sight
play
on
the
basic
layout
of
the
site,
the
basic
attitude
about
massing
of
the
building
and
when
I
talk
about
site
plan,
it's
it's
issues
like
orientation
to
the
Sun,
to
views
to
wind,
to
be
honest
with
you,
I'm
I'm,
working
on
it
and
I
apologize
to
Flynn,
but
I'm.
F
Looking
at
a
list
of
of
things
that
would
be
required,
I,
don't
yet
each
one
and
I'd
like
to
encourage
flying.
Maybe
you
should
take
a
look
at
the
City
of
Seattle,
obviously,
a
much
bigger
City,
but
even
for
smaller
projects
like
let's
say
a
10
unit,
condo
building,
they
have
a
pretty
strong
list
of
context,
diagrams
neighborhoods
I.
Think
too
often
we
ask,
for
you
know
an
aerial
photo
or
a
serious
street
montage
of
existing
buildings
and
I.
Think
that
should
be
part
of
the
application.
F
The
you
know
with
with
services
all
the
computer
options
involved.
It's
not
too
hard
to
to
gather
all
that
information
and
I
think
that's
really
important
when
one
analyzed
as
a
site
plan,
it's
not
a
site
in
isolation,
but
it's
a
site
as
part
of
a
neighborhood
and
as
part
of
a
city,
and
then
you
know,
I
think
it's
step,
one
yeah
that
the
architecture
needs
to
be
sort
of
sketched
out
in
in
in
a
way
that
provides
enough
information
so
that
Commission
knows
sort
of
what
the
quality
of
the
project
is
going
to
be.
F
But
perhaps
every
building
you
know
just
to
use
the
project
we
refer
to
today
rely
Annalee
analyze.
Today
you
know
at
that
first
step,
one,
maybe
not
every
building
that
needs
a
full
elevation.
Maybe
it's
a
couple
typical
buildings
or
a
typical
portion
of
the
building.
That
would
give
a
sense
of
scale
windows.
F
You
know
materials
even
and
then
I
think,
once
the
Commission
had
had
the
opportunity
to
really
look
at
the
project
understands
the
project
would
be
then
that
next
step
that
we've
started
to
institute,
which
or
utilize
rather
is
a
subcommittee-
in
other
words,
between
step,
one
and
I'll
call
it
step
one.
A
which
is
the
subcommittee
the
applicant
then
could
could
take
their
original
submittal
and
layer
on
further
information
or
make
changes
that
were
suggested
by
Commission
and
step
one
and
then
work
with
the
subcommittee
at
step.
F
Looking
at
you
know,
final
window
sizes
and
alignments,
and
you
know
reg
lights
and
all
that
that's
sort
of
fun
stuff
and
then
I,
don't
you
know,
I'm
sort
of
torn
I'm,
not
sure
whether
I'm
comfortable
with
the
AAC
approving
and
then
the
project
just
moving
forward
or
whether
it
needed
to
come
back
so
I'm.
You
know
I'm
whether
I'm
tending
to
be
honest
with
you,
with
with
option
number
two
but
I
think
with
a
much
more
streamlined,
organized
delineated
list
and
process
early
on
that
the
applicant
won't
have
quite
as
much
confusion.
E
Palm
Springs
in
the
short
term
that
I've
been
on
this
commission
I,
have
seen
tremendous
benefits
by
the
way
that
we're
currently
operating
I
mean
tremendous
benefits
on
that
I
think
we
get
a
superior
project,
I
mean
just
today
with
the
mural
on
project.
We
we
now
have
materials
that
will
patina
well
versus
aged
poorly
on
a
project
and
granted
that
project
may
have
taken
a
while
to
get
through
the
process,
but
I
think
ultimately
for
the
good
of
the
city
and
for
the
overall
benefit
of
the
city.
E
It
was
a
process
that
worked
for
the
applicant
and
and
for
us
I
think
another
option
could
be
is
that
I
doesn't
appear
that
we
have
liked
other
cities,
city
of
Santa
Monica
and
the
City
of
West
Hollywood.
That
was
mentioned.
We
don't
have
an
urban
designer
on
staff,
so
an
applicant
can
come
in
with
a
design.
E
In
essence,
if
we
had
a
qualified
urban
planner
on
staff,
some
of
that
massaging
could
be
done
before
it
even
reached
the
public
forum
in
the
background,
and
it
could
save
a
lot
of
time
and
usually
that
urban
designer
has
skills
not
only
in
streetscape
design,
but
they
have
skills
in
architecture
as
well
and
many
times.
They
are
an
architect
of
training.
E
Many
times
that
urban
designer
can
do
double
duty.
They
can
be
an
urban
planner
as
well
as
an
urban
designer
on
staff,
so
they
can
carry
both
roles
very
efficiently
for
the
city.
I
truly
believe
that,
as
a
Planning
Commission
and
appointed
by
directly
by
the
City
Council
that
the
urban
form
is
not
just
the
massing
that
the
urban
form
is
very
much
related
to
the
architecture
as
well,
and
that
we
should
have
a
decision-making
process
in
that
after
it's
been
massaged
by
AAC,
and
that
includes
things
like
lighting
I
mean
something
simple.
E
So
I'm
an
advocate
of
how
we're
currently
working
and
I
think
the
process
is
working
that
we
have
some
bumps
in
the
roads
with
some
people,
some
applicants
who
maybe
don't
want
to
pay
attention
to
staff
or
to
listen
to
others.
What
we
saw
today
when
somebody
does
cooperate.
We
get
a
great
project
on
that
and
those
are
my
comments.
Thank
you.
A
D
Some
of
the
proposal
would
actually
separate
out
site
plan
approval
from
architectural
approval
a
lot
of
the
these
projects.
These
days,
we
they
were
the
one.
The
one
action
that
we
take
is
the
major
architectural
approval,
because
we
don't
really
have
site
plan
review,
we're
going
to
separate
that
out,
we'll
probably
have
to
have
some
sort
of
site
plan
approval
action
that
the
Planning
Commission
could
take
in
some
form
or
another
to
say
that
yeah.
This
is
the
site
plan.
This
is
the
form.
This
is
the
all.
D
They
are
the
urban
stuff
that
we've
been
talking
about.
That
might
be
a
good
idea
if
we're
gonna
head
that
way,
I
think
we
would
need
a
formal
step
in
there.
That
says
this
is.
This
is
what
the
Planning
Commission
has
approved
at
the
site
plan,
and
then
you
you
work
with
it
AAC
or
the
architecture
I'm
still
actually,
with
the
mr.
woods,
I
think
what
we
have
now
is
working
pretty
well
I'm
on
the
school
that
every
organizational
that
you
come
up
with
will
have
its
own
problems
created
by
that
particular
organization.
D
There's
no
ideal,
one
that
you
can
come
up
with
and
right
now
we
have
our
system
and
if
you
create
some
problems-
and
we
know
where
the
problems
are,
and
we
sort
of
deal
with
them
and
just
to
make
it
work,
that's
the
way
a
lot
of
human
systems
work.
Some
people
try
to
scramble
it
occasionally
just
to
just
for
fun,
I
think
moving
this
around.
It's
gonna
just
create
different
problems
and
that
I
think
the
Planning
Commission
is
still
going
to
want
to
see
in
most
cases
the
final
designs.
A
So
worried,
I
have
and
I'm
just
looking
at
a
commission
saying,
Commission's
I've
see
that
sometimes
with
City
Council,
nobody
likes
to
give
up
things
power
and
things
they
have
and
so
and
I'm.
Looking
at
the
three
of
you
saying
is
that
part
of
the
issue
here
I
think
this
process
did
not
work
terribly
well
for
the
applicant.
A
They
went
through.
They
missed
several
months
of
getting
into
their
working
drawings
because
they
went
through
lots
of
different
steps
and
and
that's
a
concern
that
I
have
I
mean
one
simple
improvement
on
this
would
be
to
have
AAC,
be
a
more
sit-down
body
with
people
meeting
in
a
conference
room
and
sitting
across
a
table
and
not
having
it
be
a
formal
working
body
I,
you
know
that's
something.
A
We
can
institute
easily
I,
also
look
at
our
staff
time,
which
is
limited
and
they
end
up
doing
reports
and
meetings
and
packets
and
re
reports,
and
we
rimi
ting
and
packets,
and
we
don't
have.
We
don't
have
the
luxury
of
as
much
staff
time
as
we're
giving
to
this.
If
we
want
staff
to
be
doing
kind
of
the
urban
design
issues,
looking
at
things
that
we've
been
talking
about,
nor
do
I
think
we're
systemic
I
didn't
see.
A
Lighting
in
this
package
today,
I
actually
have
been
recently
working
with
designs
that
came
out
at
a
Sina
from
one
of
the
projects
and
lighting
completely
got
missed
and
didn't
get
added
into
what
the
merchant
builder
was
doing.
So
it
I
I
just
think
we
need
to
figure
out
a
way
of
addressing
it
so
that
it
goes
more
smoothly
and
I
I
think
we
have
to
be
open
to
losing
to
seating
Authority.
If
that
is
how
it
is,
what
it
would
take.
I.
C
Just
had
two
quick
thoughts
based
on
your
comments,
number
one.
They
I
agree
with
your
comment
that
the
folks
at
Maryland
lost
time
through
this
process,
but
what
I
do
think
is
that
the
ultimate
product
that
we
got
out
of
was
a
much-improved
product
and
I
do
appreciate
the
efforts
of
the
subcommittee
in
working
with
the
applicant
in
doing
that,
so
it
took
a
long
time
to
get
there,
but
I
think
the
ultimate
result
was
a
good
one.
C
I
think
we
just
need
to
work
on
how
we
can
shorten
that
front
end
process,
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
see
right
now
with
our
current
process.
That
I'm
just
gonna
throw
out
here
for
the
board
is
that
sometimes
we
have
conflicts
between
the
direction
given
by
the
AAC
and
direction
given
by
the
Planning
Commission
that
sometimes
the
two
bodies
have
different
approaches
or
different
things
that
they
are
looking
at
in
terms
of
architectural
design
and
that's
one
aspect
where
we
do
have
some
comments
from
our
applicants.
C
F
I've,
you
know
sat
on
both
AAC
and
Planning
Commission
for
a
lot
of
years.
You
know
when
I
first
started
on
AAC
Jim
Chi
off
he
was
chair
and
you
know
Jim,
you
know
Jim.
He
was
very
clear
and
didn't
allow
things
to
sort
of
wander
around,
but
he
said
some
really
good
things.
I
think
that
you
know
the
AAC.
Had
these
goals
in
mind
be
direct.
You
know
be
clear
about
things
and
I
to
be
frank:
I'll
just
cut
to
the
chase,
I
think.
F
Sometimes
the
AAC
is
a
bit
timid
and
they're
they're,
not
quite
sure
what
we
as
Commission
want
to
do.
So
that's
why
I
think
this
concept
of
a
joint
meeting
and
maybe
a
fairly
regular
joint
meeting
that
discusses
okay.
You
know
what
is
our
goal
as
a
commission?
What
what
do
we
want
projects
to
really
be
analyzed
for
and
in
other
words,
give
give
the
AAC
a
bit
more
sort
of
marching
orders
or
expectations,
and
then
they
can
feel
a
bit
more
confident,
I
think
about
giving
direction.
F
To
be
honest
with
you
just
referring
to
our
project
today,
I
think
AAC
should
have
been
tougher.
Actually
earlier
in
the
process,
and
that's
why,
when
it
came
to
this
commission,
I
did
I
could
not
in
good
conscience,
say
yeah.
F
This
is
this
is
okay
yeah,
that's
that's
conflicting
opinion,
and
sometimes
it's
very
frustrating
design
review
is
not
easy
on
either
side
of
the
table,
but
I
think
you
know
just
again
to
Torreya
reiterate
I
think
if
we
have
that
joint
meeting,
you
know
understood
a
bit
more
that
we
need
to
be
very
strong
about
certain
things
very,
very
early
in
the
process,
and
perhaps
you
know
some
of
the
landscape
issues,
I
hate
to
say,
or
even
some
of
the
material
issues
can
be
sort
of
put
to
the
just
put
to
the
background,
but
really
concentrate
early
on
site
plan,
certainly
and
then
basic
massing.
F
A
Wait
a
second
because
just
I
want
to
comment
and
what
you
said.
There
been
a
lot
of
times
where
I've
said
to
AAC
members.
If
you
hate
it,
don't
pass
it
through
and
I.
Think
we've
gotten
that
a
number
of
times
where
they
get
tired
of
a
project
they
look
at
it,
they
look
at
it
again
and
finally,
they
approve
it,
but
they
don't
really
like
it
and
they
don't
tell
us
until
later
and
I
I
can
think
of
some
commercial
examples
and
other
times
where
they
were
braver
and
we
will
they.
A
They
turned
things
down,
they
came
to
us
and
we
did
hard
work
on
them
here.
I
was
disappointed
in
them
because
we
had
designed
guidelines
that
we
worked
on
and
we
actually
worked
on
with
a
member
of
the
AAC
where
we
worked
to
formulate
the
guidelines
and
they
never
looked
at
them
when
they
passed
the
project
on
to
us.
So.
A
A
D
What
another
suggestion
be
where
we
get
lose
some
time
is
in
the
subcommittee
process
happening
after
the
Planning
Commission
starts
its
review.
Could
we,
if
we,
if
we
somehow
in
a
project,
identify
that
this
was
this
project
was
going
to
have
some
significant
architectural
issues
at
the
AC
then
form
a
joint
subcommittee
at
that
time
to
look
at
it
from
both
the
PC
and
the
AAC,
so
that
when
that
subcommittee
comes
back,
they'll
be
recommendations
first
DAC,
but
there
should
be
more
consensus
between
the
two
groups
because
they
work
together
on
the
project
helix.
D
A
F
F
Sometimes
the
first
go-around
there's
just
not
enough
information
to
give
a
good
analysis
of
a
project
and
I
think
if
this
perhaps
will
cut
down
on
staff
time
to
be
honest
with
you,
because
if
an
applicant
has
a
list
of
expectations,
then
staff
and
I
think
we'll
just
sort
of
say:
okay
applicant,
you
have
not
provided
this
documentation.
Hence
you
cannot
bring
your
project
before
us
for
the
Planning
Commission
or
the
AAC
I
think
it'll
take
pressure
off
of
staff.
F
If
you
know
I,
think
I
think
we
are
a
world-class
City
at
you
know
in
terms
of
design,
I
think
our
expectations
should
be
much
higher
and
they
should
be
somehow
codified.
I
mean
aesthetics
is
a
really
impossible
thing
to
to
do
that
for,
but
I
think
urban
design
issues
architectural
massing
issues.
Those
can
be
spelled
out,
but
the
the
easiest
thing
is
to
at
least
at
the
minimum
require
vicinity
information
about
the
neighborhood
and
how
it
fits
into
the
city
and
how
it
fits
in
environmentally
I.
F
E
If
I
could
just
make
some
comments,
I
I,
would
you
know
development
is
a
risky
business.
We
can
take
a
certain
amount
of
the
risk
out
of
that
business,
but
not
completely
removed
the
risk
on
that
I
think
we
can
take
steps
and,
looking
at
this,
to
try
and
alleviate
I.
Think
when
was
mentioned
was
to
codify
some
of
this
stuff
that
that
is
problematic.
It
appears
that
we
did
codify
it
with
mere
line.
E
That's
where
maybe
upfront,
if
we
had
an
urban
designer
on
board,
something
like
that
could
be
flushed
out
earlier.
Some
improvements,
I
might
suggest
is
that
we
report
out
a
little
bit
differently.
What
AAC
has
done
back
to
this
commission?
Maybe
it's
somebody
from
AAC,
maybe
it's
a
more
formalized
reporting
back
to
this
body
of
what
happens.
I
find
it
very
informative.
What
AAC
has
done
on
various
projects?
So
maybe
we
can
look
at
the
reporting
out
I
like
the
idea
of
a
joint
meeting.
I.
E
Think
part
of
it
is
education
and
timing,
taking
the
time
to
learn
all
of
our
different
areas,
specific
plans
and
what
not,
knowing
the
design
guidelines
takes
a
lot
of
work
and
a
lot
of
commitment.
Maybe
we
need
to
foster
a
little
bit
of
that
staff
and
have
a
little
training
sessions
or
whatever
on
that
and
as
far
as
the
conflicts
of
different
approaches,
one
thing
that
I've
noticed
is
I.
E
Think
if
I
think
the
term
was
that
the
AAC
feels
timid
and
the
few
meetings
that
I
felt,
they
feel
I
think
more
constrained,
and
maybe
we
need
to
give
them
a
little
more
leeway
in
what
that
they
look
at,
because
they
are
just
ultimately
recommending
to
us
and
maybe
a
little
more
leeway
in
what
they're
looking
at
behind
just
the
architecture
so
that
they
can
do
a
more
full
breadth
review
for
us
and
not
feel
as
timid
and
then
I
totally
agree
that
we
need
creative
architecture
in
the
city.
Thank
you.
A
C
A
good
mix
of
comments,
one
the
things
that
you
mentioned,
Doug
you'd
like
me
to
take
a
look
at
Seattle,
so
I'll
start
researching
that
and
get
that
together
and
offered
kind
of
a
hybrid
model
of
how
we
might
look
at
that
and
then,
in
addition
to
the
other
comments
that
were
made,
my
question
to
you
all
is:
what
should
we
do
as
our
next
step?
Would
you
like
to
have
an
additional
discussion
on
this?
C
A
D
F
So
I'm
gonna
review
the
site
myself
to
see
what
you
know
what
each
step
entails,
but
that
might
be
another
way
of
looking
at.
It
is
just
having
a
nomenclature
for
different
reviews,
and
maybe
it's
not
for
obviously
small
projects
but
for
bigger
projects.
That
might
be
useful,
especially
you
know,
with
with
risk
to
developers,
I
think
that
would
go
a
long
way.
Okay,.
C
Okay,
so
let's
do
that
then
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
some
additional
research
I'm
just
guessing
that
we
probably
will
not
come
back
to
you
until
January,
with
some
additional
information
and
I
apologize
to
share
where
mark
and
vice-chair
calvert.
You
probably
will
not
be
with
us
then,
but
anyway,
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
some
additional
work
before
we
come
back.
A
A
The
the
other
thing,
though
we
do
need
to
we
have
some
applicants.
We
have
to
sort
of
look
at
when
the
city
is
choosing
is
appointing,
but
we
I
think
we
have
two
people
whose
terms
end
at
the
end
of
the
year,
and
we
haven't
received
a
lot
of
applications
for
AAC
and
in
fact
we
haven't
received
sort
of
the
more
diverse
applications
we
were
hoping
to
receive
so
that
if
any
of
us
know
people
that
we
would
like
to
serve
on
the
AAC,
possibly
we
should
be
in
touch
with
them.
A
A
A
Going
to
Planning
Commission
reports,
requests
and
comments.
I
have
one
from
the
subcommittee
that
meant
today
we
were
talking
about
density
transfers
and
our
thought
was
that
we
should
probably
it's
very
difficult
to
do
a
set
density
transfer
ordinance
when
we're
looking
at
transfers
from
golf
courses
to
hillsides,
because
the
zero
zero
allowed
to
one
per
forty
acres
in
some
of
the
instances
unentitled
one
to
forty
or
one
to
twenty
is
hard
to
do
that
kind
of
a
transfer.
We
were
thinking
that
we
needed
just
some
strengthened
language
regarding
this.
A
A
C
Have
made
a
recommendation
to
the
city
manager
in
terms
of
the
system
that
we
would
like
to
purchase?
It
actually
has
a
relatively
low
purchase
price
and
can
do
many
of
the
things
that
we
really
need
it
to
do,
and
it's
a
system
that
would
be
utilized
not
only
by
the
Department
of
planning
services,
but
also
by
building
engineering,
finance,
licensing,
etc,
so
that
we
would
be
able
to
have
all
city
departments
using
the
same
system
and
sharing
that
information
back
and
forth,
which
is
one
of
the
biggest
handicaps
that
we
have
right
now.
C
This
particular
system
would
also
allow
for
the
online
submit
all
of
applications
and
materials
and
being
able
to
pay
online,
which
I
think
would
be
a
terrific
service
for
our
applicants
and
our
citizens
as
well.
So
we
have
made
that
that
recommendation
to
the
city
manager
and
we
hope
that
they'll
be
moving
forward
with
that
here
shortly.
So
fingers
crossed
I
have
a
couple
of
other
things
to
report
to
you.
I
had
mentioned
at
our
last
meeting
that
we
had
a
tentative
date
for
a
joint
planning
commission,
City
Council
meeting.
C
We
were
originally
looking
at
November
28th
and
on
that
agenda
we
would
be
discussing
the
golfcourse
ordinance,
the
planned
development
district
ordinance
and
the
small
lot
ordinance.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
believe
that
date
is
going
to
work,
so
we
may
be
looking
at
the
first
two
weeks
in
December
for
a
joint
meeting.
I,
don't
have
a
definite
date
for
that
yet,
but
I
will
keep
you
all
apprised
once
we
have
a
date
for
that
meeting.
C
The
AAC
also
appointed
two
members
to
that
subcommittee
and
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
use
that
for
the
next
group
of
homes
that
we
have
coming
forward
in
Marilyn
gallery,
Holmes
has
had
a
meeting
with
staff
and
they
look
like
they
will
be
ready
to
come
forward
here
shortly,
and
so
what
we
might
do
is
have
them
meet
with
our
subcommittee
first
to
get
some
initial
comments
on
their
proposal.
Their
proposed
designs.
C
C
C
At
this
point
in
time,
it
will
only
be
one
meeting
in
December
the
next
thing
in
terms
of
Planning
Commission
business.
We
currently
have
8
items
scheduled
for
the
December
12th
meeting
and
I
potentially
have
three
additional
items
that
may
go
on
that
agenda
that
are
critical
and
so
I
will
be
asking
you
all
to
have
a
second
meeting
in
December.
C
I,
don't
have
a
tentative
date,
yet
I
would
like
to
keep
it
early
in
the
month
so
that
we
don't
interfere
with
any
vacations
or
holidays
and
Commissioner
Hudson
I
know
that
you
will
be
out
the
second
part
of
December
on
the
fourteenth
okay.
Thank
you
very
much
that
will
help
us
in
trying
to
schedule
that
then.
C
Let's
see,
I
think
I've
taken
care
of
everything.
The
last
thing,
and
probably
the
most
important
item
to
discuss
with
you
is
a
date
for
our
annual
holiday
get-together
with
our
AAC
and
by
invitation
our
City
Council
members.
We
are
potentially
looking
at
one
of
the
first
weekends
in
December,
potentially
looking
at
December,
the
sixth,
which
is
a
Thursday
night
that
gives
more
of
my
staff
the
ability
to
attend
or
December,
7th
or
8th.
C
C
A
A
C
C
We
actually
held
a
meeting
with
them
this
week.
There
have
been
some
issues
in
terms
of
the
maintenance
of
the
site
relative
to
the
city's
vacant
building
ordinance.
We
met
to
discuss
that
as
well
as
the
fact
that
their
approvals
that
they
receive
the
conditional
use
permit
and
the
major
architectural
approval
are
set
to
expire
here
and
per
the
language
in
our
code.
Unless
they
have
commenced
construction,
they
need
to
file
an
extension
of
time
application.
At
that
meeting,
the
applicant
indicated
that
in
the
past
two
years,
they've
been
working
on
their
financing.
C
One
of
the
things
that
they
were
required
to
do
is
to
actually
look
for
a
hotel
brand
as
part
of
that
our
financing
requirements,
and
because
of
that
they
will
probably
coming
back
to
us
rather
than
with
an
extension
of
time
application,
but
with
an
amendment
to
their
conditional
use,
permit
and
their
major
architectural
to
add
a
restaurant
building
and
some
additional
parking
on
the
site.
So.
C
C
C
A
C
A
C
Of
my
head,
I
can't
think
of
any.
We
put
applicants
on
essentially
a
one-year
calendar
for
most
of
the
projects
that
have
come
back
since
we
revised
our
ordinance
I,
can't
think
of
any
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
are
pushing
up
against
that
deadline.
I
think
the
ones
that
we've
approved
will
have
the
possibility
of
another
year
I'm
just
trying
to
think
off
the
top
of
my
head
have
we
had
any
that
have
died
and
I
can't
think
of
any
right
now.