Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-24 � �rrM+' � ���'� � CITY OF PALM DESERT `' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 4 Kristi Hanson X 4 Chris Van Vliet X 3 1 John Vuksic X 4 Ray Lopez X 4 Karen Oppenheim X 4 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist I11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to approve the minutes of February 10, 2004. The motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 � �; � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PAIGE LINN, GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT, P.O. Box 134, Palm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to recover two canopies including business signage. LOCATION: 73-130 EI Paseo, Suite H; Pink Club ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith commented that there are existing blue awnings at this location and the applicant would like to recover them with pink canvas and black lettering for the signage. Commissioner Gregory asked if the height of the letters meets the criteria. Mr. Smith stated that it does. Commissioner Gregory asked the commission if they're comfortable with the pink color. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was a slightly less intense pink canvas available. A pink awning would be appropriate for the store due to the name of the business, however, the proposed color is very vibrant and it's going to be more vibrant in the desert light. Jim Sadler, representative for American Awning, was present and commented that there are other pinks but they end up looking almost like a maroon color. As pinks go, most of them are going to end up looking like a maroon/burgundy color with a "pre-faded" appearance. For the Pink Club, this is a flame retardant polyester fabric. Paige Linn, applicant, stated that her front window is done in pale pinks and mauve, which is a good contrast to the hot pink awning. She is not interested in having a pale pink that will fade, or a rose or mauve colored awning. Commissioner Gregory commented that he didn't think that the proposed awning was that "in your face". IYs not neon, radiant or overly bright. Commissioner Oppenheim asked the applicant if there was a reason why the store name was duplicated on each awning so that it reads, "Pink Club, Pink Club". Ms. Linn stated that she was just recovering the existing awnings, which had signage on both awnings. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that it looks like two establishments. Mr. Sadler stated that one awning is set back near the doorway. Ms. Linn commented that there are many, many businesses on that street that have consecutive names on their awnings. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R040224.MIN 2 5 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented that he thought that the awnings were alright. The pink is going to fade a little over time. There are establishments that have their name on repetitive awnings. It's part of the whole design of the awning. He complimented the applicant on the lettering style. Commissioner Lopez commented that the awnings aren't as big as the awning next to it. The script lettering is preferred over the block. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to the lettering being in script-style font. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 04-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROCCO ANTHONY DILUCCHIO, 73- 432 Sunny Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for a manufactured home (guest house). LOCATION: 73-432 Sunny Trail ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith commented that the applicant has returned with revised plans for a manufactured home, which will be used as a guest house. Apparently, last week the two pieces of the manufactured home were delivered to the site and placed in the area where they're requesting to put it. That was the result of having a certain permits that were ready to expire if they didn't use them. The commission was given revised plans, which were done by Lew Bishop. They are proposing to add a garage and trellis. He asked the commission if the home was acceptable or did it need additional detailing in order to make it consistent with the neighborhood, which is our goal. Commissioner Hanson commented that she went by the property. Mr. Bishop showed the commissioner photographs of the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Hanson commented that there are a lot of things in the area that the commission wouldn't necessarily approve today. The fact that there's going to be a wall around the manufactured home increasingly helps it. While we might not like the thought of a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040224.MIN 3 �` � ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES manufactured home, the commission has been directed that this is not the issue. If the new home blends into the existing home and looks like it and looks like it is a permanent structure, she doesn't have a lot of issues with it. The exterior of the home should be stucco. There is a question about the roof material, which is being proposed as having a composition roof. Mr. Bishop commented that the composition roof would be compatible with whaYs in the neighborhood. The house next door has a composition roof. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't care whaYs next door. She cares about the house that exists on the property. Mr. Bishop stated that the existing house has a flat roof. The proposed guest house will be stuccoed white and a 16' x 30' patio will be added to the front. The house will be used in conjunction with the main house on the property. Mr. Bishop stated that the existing house is a 50's contemporary flat roof house with columns on it. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is flashing on top or something where you see the grey trim. Mr. Bishop stated that he wasn't sure if it was painted or actual metal. Commissioner Gregory stated that if that's what you can see on the roof because it's flat, then maybe the gable roof on the guest house will tie into it because it's grey. Mr. Bishop commented that the patio on the front of the guest house will break up the long length of a typical manufactured home, which is 64' in length. They're also adding a three-car garage, which will make it even longer. Mr. Bishop stated that the manufacture home is sitting up about 3'-4' above grade right now but when it's dropped down it won't even be visible. Commissioner Gregory asked if the guest house meets the setback requirements and maximum roof height requirements. Mr. Bishop stated that the roof height is only 12' and it meets the setbacks. Commissioner Lopez commented that he noticed that there's rock veneer on the existing house and asked if they were going to incorporate that into the guest house. Mr. Bishop stated that the pre- cast columns on the guest house porch will match the columns on the existing house. The only place you see the rock is from the street. The existing house is on a totally different street. Mr. Bishop stated that a manufactured house is a house that's built as if you're building a wood frame house with a wood platform floor, 2 x 6 studs with insulation and it has to meet all of the same criteria as a standard wood frame tract house. Commissioner Vuksic commented G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R040224.MIN 4 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 that the manufactured home will look like the garage, which is a stick- built structure. Mr. Bishop apologized for having the manufactured home delivered to the site ahead of time, but the owner had a Cal Trans permit that was about to expire so they moved it out here. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to matching the stucco and columns on the manufactured home with the existing house. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissior�er Van Vliet absent. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOYCE WAYMAN, 76-835 Roadrunner Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Re-design of facade of existing commercial building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-290 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, 44-600 Village Court, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 15'6" roof height on two single-family homes. LOCATION: Goleta Avenue / Deep Canyon ZONE:R-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040224.MIN 5 '�wrr` �' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-12 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): MOUNTAIN SHADOWS ASSOCIATION, CARL BERGERSEN, 73-700 Grapevine Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to build a 6' high, tan, slump stone wall 9' from the curb. LOCATION: 73-700 Grapevine Street ZONE: Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 04-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ULF STRANDJORD, 72-788 Sierra Vista, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for 6' high garden wall 10' from the front and street side yard curb face. LOCATION: 72-819 Tampico Drive ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040224.MIN 6 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 7. CASE NO.: SA 04-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BELLINI RESTAURANT, 73-111 EI Paseo, Suite 106, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage. LOCATION: 73-111 EI Paseo, Suite 106; Bellini Restaurant ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that the existing awning was approved in the current location years ago. Previously the awning was beige in color for the Cuistot restaurant. The applicant was not aware that she needed the re-cover of the awning approved and she had a contractor install a yellow awning with black letters for the Bellini restaurant. Commissioner Hanson asked if the amount of lettering meets the sign criteria. Mr. Bagato stated that the doesn't have any diagrams to review. He commented that he could go to the site and measure the lettering. Mr. Drell stated that the restaurant doesn't front on EI Paseo. He guessed, in terms of area, that the lettering is okay. This is an unusual case where they're trying to get exposure for a restaurant that doesn't have actual frontage. Pisano Marylene, applicant, was present and apologized for not getting a permit for the awning. She commented that nobody can see her restaurant from EI Paseo. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't have any issue with the color or the fact that the awning is there. They probably didn't notice it as much before because it was tan but the yellow awning looks chopped off at the back. It has a very flat back, as opposed to finishing it off. She suggested repeating the same curved shape on the back to finish it off so that it looks like it belongs there. Anybody who's walking out from Estate Jewelry can see it and rather than looking at something that's half done and flat, it would look like it's supposed to be that way. Mr. Drell suggested making it look a little bit more substantial because it's flimsy looking. Ms. Marylene suggested adding lettering to the back. Commissioner Hanson suggested beefing up the poles so that they don't look like spindly poles with a heavy thing floating on top of it. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040224.MIN � � �� • ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the back of the awning wouldn't have to be a full half circle but could be a little shallower. Commissioner Gregory suggested pulling the existing rear forward so that she could get an equivalent curved part. The applicant has inherited a bad design but her restaurant does need some exposure. The height of the letters on the front could be made smaller. Typically an 8" �etter is big enough. Mr. Smith stated that the letters on the side of the awning are approximately 8" in height with the front being approximately 12" high. Ms. Marylene indicated that she can have the front lettering take off and replaced with smaller letters. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that this would be a big help. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) altering awning by adding a rounded piece on the back portion, (2) thickening pipe columns so they're at least 6" in diameter with the columns being metal, and (3) change the lettering on the front to the size of the lettering on the side of the awning. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MARK RATLIFF, 73-725 De Anza Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 18' high roof for a single-family residence. LOCATION: 73-725 De Anza Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant is proposing an 18' high roof from finished grade. It started out at around 21'6" and the applicant has lowered it to 18'. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040224.MIN g �rr' `.,� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to add MISC 03-07 to the agenda. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 9. CASE NO.: MISC 03-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� FRANK URRUTIA, 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of fire station remodel. LOCATION: Mesa View Drive ZONE: PR-7. Mr. Smith stated that the plans are consistent with what the commission had seen previously and which had received preliminary approval by minute motion. It was recommended that final approval be granted. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to add PP 02-88 to the agenda. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 10. CASE NO.: PP 02-88 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of roof material for a new office building. LOCATION: San Pablo (north of San Gorgonio) ZONE: OP G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminb4R040224.MIN 9 � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES John Vuksic stated that they have a very gently curved roof on the building. The roof material that was previously approved was a urethane foam roof with gravel on it. He'd like to change it to a standing seam metal roof because it's a better quality roof. You can't really see the top of the roof, but you can see the edge. If you're back far enough you can start to catch the top of the roof. They've never used a gravel roof on a project like that and they're not sure how perfect it's going to be. If there are rifts in it, they'd be a littte concerned about it. The standing seam metal roof will be galvanized. Commissioner Hanson asked if it would be reflective. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it has a dull finish and would not be reflective. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's fine. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Gregory for approval of standing seam galvanized metal roof material to replace the previously approved polyurethane insulated textured roof. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICK EVANS, 71-800 Highway 111, Suite A224, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised elevations for a hotel building in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street ZONE: PCD Rick Evans introduced Michael Robinson, architect. Mr. Evans stated that they attempted to come back with some refinements to the elevations for the hotel, including rear and end elevations. Mr. Robinson stated that basically the hotel was designed for consistency with the other retail buildings with some up and downs, ins and outs and movement so it's not just a flat building. Parts of the building are setback and use different colors to create a village idea. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040224.MIN 1� � � ` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith commented that the ARC reviewed conceptual plans for the hotel in September of 2003. There are freestanding restaurants in front to the east. The location is at Berger and Cook Street, but it's setback 250' from the street and is at the southern limit of the overall development of 25 acres. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the third floor is setback from the first and second floor. Mr. Robinson stated that it's setback approximately 18". Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has a couple of concerns. One concern is the design of the entry structure. It should look like it belongs to the rest of the hotel. Even if it did, he's concerned about it aesthetically on its own. It looks very top heavy. The mass above the glass line and eye brow is too heavy looking. He's not convinced that this is an acceptable design solution for that element. Mr. Robinson asked if it would be better to take some of the elements and proportions and put them into the entry. They were trying to create the idea that the entry would be a separate type of building. Commissioner Vuksic commented that that's okay, but if you took it on its own he didn't think it's "there". He asked the architect if he thought it was nice and if he was happy with it. Mr. Robinson commented that he thought that it was a big improvement to what they had done before. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked what he was saying and if you look at it in context, it ties in okay. IYs close but it needs to pull up a little bit. Mr. Robinson commented that he could eliminate the eyebrow, or recess it or leave it flush and then raise the windows up. Commissioner Vuksic agreed and commented that he didn't think it was a big deal but they need to "massage" it a bit. He stated concern on the rear elevation and how long it is and how little is going on there. That is going to be visible from public areas. Mr. Evans stated that it'll be across the street from a park. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there isn't enough happening on the rear elevation. Mr. Robinson stated that there's one plane with another plane setback. There's another plane pushed out in front to create shadow. There is a big attempt to move up and down and in and out. The idea is trying to move the building in and out and create shadow lines. The building is approximately 300' long. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the planes are a couple of feet apart and the building is as long as a football field. Mr. Robinson stated that on the side portion they're pulling back about 8'-10'. Commissioner Hanson asked if they had enough room at the back entrance to push it out a little bit further. Maybe they could replicate the arch with some stone out further so that it's almost like a covered entrance into it. The rear entrance is too simplified. It's not strong enough to read "entrance". All you read is the mass of all the windows, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040224.MIN 11 'wrr � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES as opposed to something much stronger. Mr. Evans commented that from a business point of view, the design is not necessarily to have an entrance at the rear. The closest hotel that's similar in terms of rooms and basic box is the Hampton Inn. What they've attempted to do on the back side of the hotel is to replicate a little bit of the front entrance, but there is a concern on the part of all the operators that they're talking to is that this will become too major of an entrance. It needs to make a statement that it's not a back of a building, similar to what Mr. Robinson did on the retail buildings on Cook Street. Everything has to have a back. When you're building in the round you have to give it some tweaks. To be able to move it out a little bit further probably wouldn't be a problem and to put the same kind of arch as the front probably wouldn't be a problem because it's not really a cost issue. It's more of an aesthetic issue. The other option is to eliminate it completely and end up with a very small, simply stated pair of doors in one of the bays, which would be a good secondary entrance/exit for the daytime person. The rear doors will be locked at night, as all the hotels are. Commissioner Hanson commented that she felt that what Commissioner Vuksic was saying, and she agreed with him, was that it reads with too much of all the repetition of the rooms and what entrance is there now isn't enough to break up the elevation. Maybe iYs a matter of taking those stone elements on the main entry and maybe it's something out in front along the sidewalk that maybe is more of a landscape element. It could be a disconnected element. Something has to stop your eye from reading the complete horizontal elevation with no interest. Mr. Robinson suggested keeping the entry very simple and popping it out a couple of feet and then adding something to the landscape. Commissioner Hanson stated that something minor can be done to fix it. The front is nice, but iYs not reading as well on the back. Mr. Drell asked if they intended to add awnings to the west elevation. Mr. Robinson stated that he's left the windows deeper. Mr. Drell stated that in the afternoon, deeper doesn't do much for you. They'll have tremendous heat gain from the glass. Commissioner Gregory asked how much the windows are recessed. Mr. Robinson commented that they're recessed 18"-24". Mr. Evans stated that to put awnings on the west side would have minimal additional effect. They like the idea that the building is clean and would like to let some of the landscaping hold onto it. They took the patio rooms on the ends off because it wasn't clean enough. They were afraid that it was going to be too difficult to maintain, which could have an effect on maintenance and also the eventual look. He's really happy with the fact that the commission has pushed them to this level. One of the reasons why they decided to come back before they went back to the City Council is to be able to get G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040224.MIN 12 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES approval of the concept that they're after and whatever changes they have to make and move forward. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they don't want to design the building by committee. Commissioner Hanson stated that where it says "Suites Hotel" at the top left side, is that that element maybe has a little punch to it and repeating an element that they might have elsewhere. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the colors are very effective. The composition of the front is nice. They should break up the back in the same way that they did the front, but they don't have to create the same kind of huge entrance. They need to break the very, very long horizontal elevation at the rear. Commissioner Gregory commented that the building is simple and clean but they have a long roof line that they're always trying to work with. Will this building look industrial because of this? At the least, they should enhance the feeling of the larger structure towards the left on the backside so that it reads as an element with a little more articulation. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PRES DEVELOPMENT, 1201 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for sixteen industrial/commercial buildings. LOCATION: Monterey 10 Business Center; S.E. corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Leilani Way ZONE: Commercial/Industrial Mr. Smith stated that this project went before the ARC a couple of months ago and the applicant has returned with revised plans. Mr. Urbina stated that the previous materials board had three different colors of slate and now the applicant has reduced it to one color, which is light charcoal grey. This will be incorporated into some of the inset elements. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWRD40224.MIN l3 � � ` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the change, but they copped out and used the same element on each building. It actually looks very nice. The only thing that she found that she didn't feel that the applicant had addressed is that they had issues with the sides of some of the units on 4, 11 and 12 that other buildings such as buildings 14 and 13 are actually going to front on and what they're looking at. The applicant stated that they changed the parapets, insets, colors, reveals and glass. They made sure that all of the front buildings didn't just have a fake front facade. Everything was addressed in terms of parapet height, reveals, insets, glass, etc... On building 11, one of the comments was that someone in building 10 would look at the back of building 11. They went around all the buildings to make sure that they had architecture. The towers on buildings 1 and 12 are not the same as the towers on buildings 15 and 16. The towers are different heights, different colors, have different orientation and they'll read differently in sunlight. Commissioner Gregory commented that the revised plans are a great improvement over the last submittal. Commissioner Hanson stated that they look beautiful and they'll be a nice addition to the area. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 4-0-1-1 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040224.MIN 14