The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-03-23 i � �_�W 7 � / •� CITY OF PALM DESERT _- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES MARCH 23, 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 5 1 Kristi Hanson X 6 Chris Van Vliet X 4 2 John Vuksic X 6 Ray Lopez X 6 Karen Oppenheim X 6 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 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2004 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to approve the minutes of March 9, 2004. The motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 t , �hr� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: PP 03-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72- 624 EI Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings for a new 4,971 square foot office complex. LOCATION: 73-081 Fred Waring, south side of Fred Waring, 390 feet east of Monterey. ZONE: O.P. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 02-16/VAR 02-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings for a new 36-unit apartment complex known as Palm Village Apartments. LOCATION: 73-610 Santa Rosa Way ZONE: R-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040323.MIN 2 , , �rrr' �r+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: MISC 04-17 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): DAVID KATO, 40-963 Avenida Solana, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a batting cage in the rear yard of a single family residence. LOCATION: 40-963 Avenida Solana ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Bagato stated that the batting cage is not visible from a public street. It was put up in the rear yard of the homeowner's property. The code requires that it be10' away from each property line since the structure is 10' in height. The neighbor to the east can see it, but the applicant has placed the batting cage 30' away from that property line. The other side is about 16' from the property line and it's 7'-8' from the rear, which is bordered by large trees. The applicant has already planted laurel figs along the walls. Ms. Hollinger stated this type of landscaping is very fast growing. Mr. Bagato stated that the batting cage meets the code. David Kato, applicant, stated that he has two very young children who use the batting cage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when you live in a neighborhood, things like this happen. Next to his house is a delapidated treehouse and on the other side is a trampoline with screens around it. It's just part of being in a family neighborhood. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that she felt that there was a lot of good faith with the landscaping. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040323.MIN 3 � ' � �„` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: MISC 04-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS, 304 Enterprise Street, Escondido, CA 92027 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to amend an existing facade enhancement for a retail store in Palms to Pines Central. LOCATION: 72-815 Highway 111, 99¢ STORE ZONE: PC3 Mr. Smith stated that the commission should consider item #5, which is the signage proposal, in concert with this request. Mr. Bagato stated that his initial concern when reviewing the plans was that it looked like it was for one tenant, when it should've been designed so that each tenant should look separate. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he had some concerns about how unsubstantial the architecture is in general. When I look at the roof plan it looks like the forms that appear to have a lot of depth to them actually have no depth whatsoever. Chris Post, representative for Anthony-Taylor Consultants, was present and stated that they tried to characterize the overall structure of the facade in similar proportions as the one that was approved for Staples. At the face of the tower they have 35'-40' which provides tremendous depth to the storefront. The smaller towers on either side carry back to the storefront. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's talking about the parapets where there are lots of lines showing different parts of the parapets and it looks like none of the different level changes in the parapet are carried back any further than 6" or 8". Commissioner Hanson stated that they're in the same plane. Mr. Post stated that they are in the same plane but that part of the design, as far as how they're carried back over the width of the structure and over the original parapet of the existing storefront really hasn't been worked out. Mr. Post corrected himsetf and stated that the three elements are not in the same plane. They don't show up on the plans because they didn't have time to change the plans after meeting with Mr. Drell. The elements will carry back in some form but they're not sure exactly how. They will carry back with the structure that they're attached to. They're not trying to re- G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040323.MIN 4 , , �'►`' �,�+' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES invent the design theme or trying to be a maverick. They're trying to come up with something that already meets the approved theme. The previously approved elevations show two smaller tenants and they now have one major tenant. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has a concern with the roof plan. He'd like to see the new plan that shows greater detail before granting preliminary approval. Mr. Post asked if the commission would consider applying certain conditions to an approval rather than make them come back to the next meeting. Mr. Drell stated that it depends on how comfortable the commission is with their understanding of what the elevation shows. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they still have significant design elements to resolve. Mr. Post wanted a preliminary "nod" so that they could at least start on the interior drawings. Mr. Drell stated that they can always start the interior drawings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that without a floor plan it makes it very difficult to understand what's going on. It's a massive building and it's important to know the details. There are sections of the building where they have no idea whaYs happening in plane. There is some concern about the 99¢ element. The main concern isn't the big square and shape of it, but wondered what the big rectangle is for. This is the main architectural element for that section of the building. The sign is for the 99¢ Only and there's a massive rectangle framing it so that it all looks like a sign. He asked the applicant if that was the intent. Mr. Post stated that it's just to provide some relief. They have a trim detail that's about 6" or 8" relief in the face of the tower and the sign is set in to break up the plane so that it's not a long expanse of wall. Commissioner Hanson stated that it appears that the length is out of proportion of the actual sign. The sign ends up being more square-like and the two don't relate very well. There's a lot going on on either side, but it's just blank space. Mr. Post suggested that they could separate the sign with the two 9's and then the "Only" and "Stores" are separated somewhat so that they could get a more linear look, as opposed to the square look. Commissioner Hanson suggested losing the linear look, leave the sign the way it is and do something else with the large rectangle. Mr. Post stated that they do have a lot of space between the outside of each side of the sign and the end of the rectangle. It wouldn't be a big deal to bring it in. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they shouldn't just bring it in and not think about it anymore. Think about what would make it work architecturally and still frame the sign properly. Commissioner Hanson stated that it looks like a billboard. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040323.MIN $ ' ' �Mr` � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Post stated that they're doing two stores, but they've thought of the whole facade as one piece. It was suggested that they give each storefront their own identity. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: SA 04-42 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): DIANE NELSON, ANTHONY- TAYLOR CONSULTANTS, 304 Enterprise Street, Escondido, CA 92029 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage. 99¢ Store LOCATION: 72-815 Highway 111, Palms to Pines Shopping Center ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed sign is 116 square feet and they're entitled to 104 square feet so they're over by 12 square feet. He recommended that the sign be internally illuminated reverse channel letter. Commissioner Vuksic asked how large the sign is at Robinson's-May. Mr. Drell stated that the tetters are approximately 5' in height. We don't have any signage with letters larger than 5' or 6' in height. Commissioner Hanson stated that 9' high letters would be entirely excessive. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he has some concern about the height of the sign with letters that are 9' in height. Commissioner Lopez asked the applicant if there would be any additional signage, such as a monument sign. Mr. Post stated that they have a very small panel on the monument sign. Mr. Drell stated that the monument sign has not been approved. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040323.MIN 6 . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson stated that this store is not behind something so that it can't be seen. Even Barnes & Noble has signage that's plenty big and it's 42" in height and they sit further back from Highway 111. Mr. Post asked if they reduced the size of the main panel sign, could they have additional signage perhaps on the left tower? They have a small logo which is a lit oval can sign which could go on the face of the tower. Mr. Drell stated that they started off with 13' letters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he drew a sketch of the signage at 5' in height on the building and it looked nice. It's still large and will certainly be visible. Mr. Post suggested taking the words "only" and "store" and separate them a little bit so that there's some space between them. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the applicant think about doing a sign that's tastefully done rather than having the biggest sign possible. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to reconfigure wording with the letters not to exceed 5' in height. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: C 04-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS for CHAPMAN & SONS, 72-624 EI Paseo, Suite B6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a facade enhancement of a retail building. LOCATION: 73-740 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR040323.MIN � � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: MISC 04-20 APPLICANT�AND ADDRESS): ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new store fronts to three existing buildings and adding 1,740 square feet to buildings 1 & 2. LOCATION: 74-990 Joni Drive ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato distributed photos of the existing buildings for the commissioners to review. Commissioner Vuksic stated that without a roof plan it was difficult to figure out what was going on there. He asked if the parapet on the south side was closed in the back. There was concern about the large arched elements appearing too flat because they're so massive. He suggested making the arches thicker. It was unclear what the double lines are on the plans. Bob Ricciardi, architect, was present and stated that the double lines represent pilasters. The existing buildings are metal with metal roofs. They're going to put a new roof over the existing roof. You won't see the top of the roof because of the landscaping. He's working with the City to see how much landscaping he can get around the buildings. He also has to add handicapped parking because the buildings were built so long ago that there are no designated handicapped parking spaces. It would be hard to make the arched elements thicker because he's dealing with metal buildings. Commissioner Hanson asked if he would have trouble making them at least 2' thicker. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he thought he would. Right now they're approximately 1' thick. He could try to make them 1' thicker. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the cornice detail goes all the way around. He couldn't tell because he didn't have a roof plan. Mr. Ricciardi stated that the cornice detail will go all the way around on three sides. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it should go all the way G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�P,R040323.MIN 8 . . �rrr�" "'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES around on four sides. Mr. Ricciardi stated that one portion is hidden and you would never see it. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the cornice on the arch forms will continue all the way around on four sides. Mr. Ricciardi stated that it would. Commissioner Hanson stated that it appears that as a car is coming down Cook Street they would have the potential of seeing into the back of the mechanical equipment and if it is visible, it needs to be closed up. Mr. Ricciardi stated that he didn't think you could see into the back of it. Commissioner Hanson stated that if you can see the equipment, it should be closed up. Mr. Ricciardi agreed. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval subject to (1) arched elements 3' thick, (2) cornice detail to continue all the way around four sides of arches, and (3) tower on the south elevation will continue on four sides if back is visible. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 8. CASE NO.: MISC 04-19 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM E. RAINEY, 44-489 Town Center Way, #278, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' high roof height for a single family residence. LOCATION: 73-488 Joshua Tree Street ZONE: R-1, 12,000 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 04-07 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�P,R040323.MIN 9 . '� � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALLAN ZYLSTRA, 12161 Firestone Blvd., Norwalk, CA, 90650 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new commercial building. � LOCATION: 73-168 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith stated that the old building will be demolished and replaced with a new commercial building. The applicant was not present. Commissioner Hanson stated that because of all the work thaYs going to be done in the back alley, the back of the proposed building should look as good as the front. The use of stone looks "tacked-on" versus making it look like an element. The wrought iron is very nice. Mr. Urbina stated that the building will house four offices, two downstairs and two on the second floor. The applicant was out of town and would not be able to attend. Action: Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to be present. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 03-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� GLASSTONE� INC.� 74-780 42nd Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 19,867 square foot building located on 42"d Avenue. LOCATION: 74-780 42�d Avenue ZONE: SI Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the case at the request of the applicant. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040323.MIN 1� . , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 03-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID PREST, PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 72-624 EI Paseo, Suite B-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new two-story 31,118 square foot office building. LOCATION: 39-850 Portola Avenue, north of Country Club Drive ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that the commission had previously approved the single-story architectural elements. The applicant has returned with elevations for a two-story office building which will be located on the east side of the property, closest to Desert Willow. Mr. Bagato stated that the building meets the 20' setback thaYs required and meets the height limit. Staff is recommending approval. David Prest, architect, was present stated that there will be no equipment on the roof of the building. Commissioner Lopez asked about the type of glass to be used for the windows. Mr. Prest stated that it will be gray tinted glass. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval. Motion carried 3-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 04-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� TIMOTHY DI TOMASO, P.O. Box 27427, Anaheim, CA 92809 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a food court complex and fast food drive through. LOCATION: 41-555 Cook Street ZONE: FCOZ G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040323.MIN 11 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that the site is located on the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. Mr. Winklepleck stated that Frank Urrutia, architect, was present to discuss any architectural issues that the commission may have. The one concern that staff has primarily deals with the roof-mounted equipment which may be visible coming down over the overpass heading north on Cook Street. Mr. Drell suggested adding a second roof over the roof-mounted equipment, like the design that Holt Architects did in the same area. He also suggested having site-line studies done from the overpass. Mr. Urrutia stated that the parapets are 5'-6' in height. Commissioner Hanson commented that the project was fun-looking, but asked the architect to explain his thought process on the truss element. Mr. Urrutia stated that he was trying to create a visual space for the common area and tie the buildings together. He didn't want the buildings to look like four little buildings so the effort was to pull everything together with the truss element. Commissioner Hanson stated that she loved the arched elements and the squared-off trellis elements, but the truss element doesn't relate to the rest of the project. Mr. Drell asked the architect if there were sign locations designated for the tenants. Mr. Urrutia stated that he has various areas on the south elevation for signage. There are also some opportunities for signage on the north elevation as well. Commissioner Vuksic commented that it's a great looking complex. He stated some concern about the roof-mounted mechanical equipment. Mr. Drell suggested providing a line-of-sight plan showing the view from the overpass. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Urrutia if the mechanical equipment would be lower than the parapet. Mr. Urrutia stated that it would be lower, more than likely. The buildings will house small eateries such as Subway or an ice cream parlor. There's no question that they'll have some equipment on their buildings. There's going to be a back of the house. Generally, there will be some exhaust fans and other equipment. The air conditioning units will be fairly small packages so 5'-6' parapets should be sufficient to hide them. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are some areas along Cook Street where the equipment could be tucked up against the parapet, even if it's a few inches, by the time you project the inches back to Cook Street it's going to be well above the line of sight. Mr. Urrutia stated that they could look at how much of the roof-mounted equipment is visible on the Mobil station, which is near the proposed site. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gminWR040323.MIN 12 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Urrutia how this project ties in with the project by Jerry Williams. Mr. Urrutia stated that they have different owners. Ms. Hollinger indicated that she has not seen the landscape plan for this praject. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture only subject to adding a screening element, if necessary, to screen mechanical equipment from the Cook Street off ramp. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: PP 04-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� HOLT ARCHITECTS, 41-555 Cook Street, Suite 1-100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised roof plans for business park consisting of (5) two-story buildings for commercial, office and industrial warehouse uses (166,00 square feet on 10.59 acres east of Cook Street at I-10). LOCATION: 41-555 Cook Street ZONE: PCD Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. 6. CASE NO.: PP 03-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� PATEL ARCHITECTURE, 71-711 San Jacinto Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised architecture for a new office building. Oracle Plaza LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive, east of San Pablo ZONE: OP G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040323.MIN 13 • �` �rr+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Smith stated that Nick Patel, architect, was prepared to show the commission a power point presentation of the proposed new office building. Mr. Bagato stated that he's been working with the applicant for more than a month. The problem with this project involves the widening of Fred Waring. The existing curb will move in by 6' and Public Works is requesting 4' of right-of-way. Therefore, the building does not meet the setback requirements. Commissioner Hanson asked if the planter along the back wall could be removed. The parking spaces are 18' long. Mr. Smith stated that he only needs 6" of them to meet the 16'6" plus 2'. Conceivably, they could pick up 5'. Mr. Drell asked if all the planters are 9' x 18'. Mr. Patel stated that they are. Mr. Patel stated that as far as the setbacks, it already complies. He cut down the original building by 4' because of the expansion of Fred Waring. It has been re-designed to meet the setback. Mr. Bagato stated that it meets the curb now with the street setback, but it won't meet the ultimate setback. The property line was moved by 4' because Public Works needed 4' of right-of-way. Even now, the building doesn't meet the 1:1 requirement. Once the curb moves, it still won't meet the 1:1 requirement. Mr. Patel stated that it meets the street setback. Mr. Drell stated that it doesn't meet the 1:1 requirement and unfortunately this is part of the setback requirement. 1:1 is measured from the ultimate curb. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the proposed building does not look like it's been artificially stretched to be more prominent. The proportions feel good on the building. Mr. Drell commented that an ordinance was drafted that provided for height exceptions with certain criteria, however, the City Council declined to adopt that ordinance. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would rather reward somebody who has done great architecture rather than penalize them regarding the roof height. As members of the Architectural Review Commission, iYs their job to reward somebody who's done great architecture. This building supports that. While it might be taller than the ordinance - allows, there are a lot of things going on that are going to make it interesting so that it won't be a flat face stuck straight up against the curb that's very uninteresting. She suggested working with the parking spaces being shorter. Mr. Drell stated that the spaces only have to be 16'6" in length. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that the architecture is stunning. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR040323.MIN 14 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2004 MINUTES Mr. Patel stated that only certain portions of the building exceed the height limit. Commissioner Vuksic commented that this is setting quite an aggressive precedent and they're going to judge whether the buildings have enough architectural merit for a height exception. This project is absolutely beautiful and he would approve it. The current height ordinance is too low and does not allow substantial buildings to be architecturally interesting. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for preliminary approval of architecture. Motion carried 4-0-0-2 with Commissioners Gregory and Van Vliet absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:47 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR040323.MIN 1$