08 - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND On December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed P13-2028, the application for Design Review approval submitted by Anil and Divya Reddy to evaluate the conformance of their residence located in the Ruby Hill Development to the Ruby Hill Architectural Design Guidelines (RHADG). Minutes of the Planning Commission hearing are attached (Attachment 5). After reviewing the staff report and attachments, hearing testimony by the applicants and members of the public, the Planning Commission found the applicants' residence as constructed did not conform to the RHADG and voted unanimously to require its design as constructed be referred back to the Ruby Hill Architectural Design Committee (RHADC) for review to identify the corrections necessary to bring it into compliance with the RHADG. APPEAL The applicants appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. Attachment 2 is the applicants' letter and Attachment 3 is the letter from the applicants' attorney stating the reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted in favor of Option 2 (see Planning Commission staff report, page 30) determining that the residence does not conform to the Ruby Hill Architectural Design Guidelines and that the applicants be required to go back to the Ruby Hill Architectural Design Committee for a complete review of the residence. City staff continues to recommend Option 1 (Planning Commission staff report, page 29) which addresses seven items in dispute by the RHADC and the Reddys (see page 5 of the Planning Commission staff report which summarizes the seven items), as follows: 1. Determine that the following three items are consistent with the RHADG and may remain in place without need for modification: 1) the pilasters and lamps flanking the entrance to the auto court; 2) the three front entrance doors; and, 3) the capitals installed on top of the building's columns. 2. Determine that the following three items are not consistent with the RHADG and shall be referred back to the RHADC for review and approval: 1) repaint the building to a muted color as determined by the RHADC; 2) use Garage 1 to park cars and replace the glass garage doors on Garage 1 with solid garage doors of the same material as Garage 2; and, 3) finish the gazebo in the rear yard as determined by the RHADC. 3. Require the applicants to retain a qualified Civil Engineer to identify all corrective measures necessary to ensure that proper drainage systems are designed and installed to prevent runoff between the applicants' property and adjacent properties, shall then submit the plans showing these measures to the City Engineer for review and approval before installation, and shall then install the corrective measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2