Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-23 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2005 **************************************************************************************************** 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 13 3 Kristi Hanson X 12 4 Chris Van Vliet X 12 4 John Vuksic X 16 Ray Lopez X 14 2 Karen Oppenheim X 16 Karel Lambell X 15 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 9, 2005 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to approve the minutes of August 9, 2005. The motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 fir✓ `prim ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 05-94 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., JIM ENGLE, JR., 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Tiger Mortgage. LOCATION: 78-000 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 203 ZONE: OP Mr. Stendell stated that the commission has previously approved a sign program for this building. The current proposal is before the commission because the tenant (Tiger Mortgage) is not happy about the location of their signage and they would like to have it moved to the Washington Street side of the building. Staff's recommendation, which is based on the prior discussion on this project at ARC, is that it goes against everything that the commissioners had talked about. The elevation that was allocated for the tenant is on the north side because the commission had stated that they didn't want all the signage on the Washington frontage. Commissioner Hanson stated that she can't stress enough from her own standpoint of how absolutely horrible it is when we take a nice building and literally cover every square inch possible in signage. You have a multitude of signs and a multitude of colors and it's awful. I can appreciate somebody wanting people to know where they are, but I also believe that people have the ability to say that their business is on the corner of Fred Waring and Washington. What's wrong with that? Why do you have to have your sign out there? Steve Lyle, who is one of the owners of the building, was present and commented that he's done leasing for over twenty years. Mortgage companies, in particular, really need that visibility of signage. Tiger Mortgage has been in Palm Desert for years and years. They wanted to make a move to a building at a prime corner where they could get good signage and that they would always be known that they were there. Commissioner Hanson asked if Tiger Mortgage signed a lease knowing where their signage was going to be. Mr. Lyle stated that they did not because the sign program was not approved at that time. We G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 2 *"O► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES had hoped that they would be allowed to have one sign per space. There are three spaces upstairs with one of them facing Fred Waring and two facing Washington. Across the street is La Quinta and there's going to be a shopping center with a lot of signage in that location. We feel that it's appropriate that across the street from a shopping center with a lot of signage that this building should be allowed signage to support the tenants that are in the building. Mr. Engle stated that they would use a 14" high reverse channel letter with subdued lighting. Commissioner Hanson asked if the letters have to be white. Mr. Lyle stated that the reason why white was chosen was that Keller Williams Realty used white letters for the word "Realty" and they didn't want to introduce another color. We thought that white wouldn't jump off the building and be bright like red. We thought that white would be an appropriate color and it would look balanced and not be garish in any way. It's-very important to Tiger Mortgage. I just noticed that a new mortgage company moved into Best Buy and they went right out on the front and payed the high rent to get the signage. It's so critical. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the signage was approved for Tiger Mortgage. Mr. Stendell stated that they were always in the location on the north face. Mr. Lyle stated that when he first entered into a lease with Tiger Mortgage he was hopeful that they would get one sign for upstairs. We accomplished that but Tiger's sign being forced onto the side of the building just doesn't work. The only people who would see it are people going to the dentist next door. It's a very expensive sign because we've required everybody to do the reverse channel letters so the signs cost upwards of $10,000. If Tiger were to make this kind of investment and put it on the side of the building, it seems like a waste of money. Commissioner Hanson asked if the dentist building is disappearing. Mr. Lyle stated that they have a long-term lease. Mr. Drell stated that it's a manufactured modular building, but we've never had a discussion with them replacing it. Mr. Lyle stated that they invested almost $300,000. upgrading the building about four years ago and they have a long-term lease. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if there was a reason why they didn't chose black letters for the sign. White is just so bright. Mr. Lyle stated that white was chosen because Keller Williams Realty used white. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that Chicago Title used black letters. Commissioner Hanson stated that bronze is a softer color. Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem with the dark painted G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 3 *MW *"Noe ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES background is that the white really has a strong contrast. Mr. Engle suggested changing it to an off-white color. Commissioner Lambell asked why it had to be white at all. Mr. Engle stated that they were looking for contrast. Commissioner Lambell commented that the only reason that Keller Williams got approved was because that was their corporate color scheme. Being that Tiger Mortgage doesn't have a corporate color scheme, then why can't it go back to what Chicago Title is, both in scale, thickness and color? I've never had trouble driving by this corner and recognizing that Chicago Title is on the corner. If I could see Chicago Title that well, then I'm sure that I could see Tiger Mortgage. It would be overwhelming. I understand your questions and concerns, but we talked about having all signs up high being the same color. What ever happened to that? Mr. Lyle stated that Coldwell Banker and Keller Williams have logos. The Coldwell Banker sign is white and blue on the Fred Waring frontage and we haven't had anybody saying that that sign is "too much in your face". The bank sign on the lower level is so small that it's hard to tell that there's a bank there. We don't feel that the building is over-signed. We care a lot about this building. It's going to stay in the family forever. We wouldn't be recommending this signage if we thought that it was going to be unattractive. Commissioner Vuksic commented that a reasonable compromise would be to make it match the Chicago Title sign more in its color and size and thickness of the letters. The letters could be bronze. If all the signs were bronze, it would be nice. Mr. Engle asked if he could use either black or bronze letters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could use black or bronze letters. Commissioner Hanson asked how many additional signs will go on this building. Mr. Lyle stated that the building is full. Commissioner Hanson commented that the commission gets pushed in this direction every time. I don't think that we should give final approval to a new commercial project unless they have a sign program approved with it. I'm so tired of getting backed into a corner with the owners when they're told that they've already signed a lease with a tenant. You have to be honest with the people that you're signing a lease with. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval subject to (1) 12" letters to match Chicago Title, (2) letters being bronze or black, and (3) thinner letters, to be approved G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES by staff. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson opposed and Commissioner Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CMC WHITECAP, BROCK GRAYSON, 20950 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of elevations for a 31,679 square foot office/industrial building. LOCATION: 73-600 Dinah Shore ZONE: SI Mr. Drell stated that the City Council approved the elevations but had the developer reduce the roof height to 30' which eliminated the elements that broke up the horizontal lines. There were two projects that this happened to and this was the second one. Commissioner Gregory commented that he felt that the way that the commission responded to the previous situation like this was somewhat effective. Mr. Drell stated that the only decision that the commission needs to make is to be sure that the plans are consistent with the preliminary approval, as approved by the Council. The Council action is final. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval of architecture only, however, the commissioners expressed disappointment in that the City Council has chosen to approve what is considered inferior architecture and to not supply the commission with the proper direction regarding the 30' height requirements. The commission would like to have the opportunity in the future to revisit the architecture with the applicant within the 30' height limit guideline. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet opposed and Commissioner Lopez absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DR. CORINA MORRISON, 72-705 Highway 111, Suite 9, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of elevations for two medical office buildings. LOCATION: 72-415 Parkview ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: C 05-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARVER COMPANIES, 74-947 Highway 111, Indian Wells, CA 92210-7113 MARK GILES, KKE ARCHITECTS, 525 E. Colorado Blvd., 4" Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101-5226 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of four retail buildings at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: 34-300, 34-380, 34-460, 34-580 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is submitting all four buildings at the same time so that the commission can review them and make sure that they're consistent with each other and also consistent with the architectural guidelines for the center. Mr. Drell stated that the goal was to see if the architectural details that are in the guidelines are being used in the proposed buildings. Mr. Bagato stated that the towers don't have any openings at the top. Mr. Drell stated that, in general, having architectural features that look like they're openings and then they're GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES bricked in is kind of dumb looking. Commissioner Hanson commented that you could have architectural features that are tiled with Spanish tiles, which would look good. Mr. Drell stated that if it looks like it should've been an arch where you expected an opening and it's been bricked in, it looks like it got abandoned. There's a level of detail that just isn't there. Mr. Bagato stated that the arches in the design guideline don't match the proposed arches. Mr. Drell stated that they're arches that would never physically be possible with masonry. They're too flat. One of the details is that this is supposed to replicate a masonry building, therefore, you need details that could be replicated with a masonry building. Mr. Bagato stated that some of the little windows aren't shown on the buildings. The applicant is realizing how overwhelming this style is so we wanted to talk about what kind of details that they're going to need to carry through to make it work and not look generic. The overall center doesn't meet the design guidelines. Mark Giles, KKE Architects, was present and argued that the design guidelines aren't Santa Barbara architecture. Mr. Drell stated that the design guidelines are what were proposed by the applicant and were approved. If the applicant had wanted some other design, then the drawings would've been different. Mr. Giles stated that originally they had more color and articulation on the building. We went back and simplified the building so that there are several colors, stone, rafter tails, tile, etc... Mr. Bagato stated that previously they were missing the trellis details. Commissioner Hanson stated that after reviewing the design guidelines and remembering how great it looked and then looking at the proposed buildings and commented on what was represented in the drawings. The whole series of arches basically being the same all the way across one of the elevations and just popping something up just isn't enough to represent what the architecture was supposed to be. The things that I noticed that were missing is where you've got vertical elements that pop up. In the proposed drawings you have another layer of detail that come down a little bit further which just adds a little bit of something into it. Around most of the arches, particularly the big glassed-area ones, tend to have a stone or stone-like element trim around all of them. It was represented that we would have stone columns instead of having plaster columns. I don't mind the big openings that end in a wall, but I would encourage the applicant to do what was represented here which is add some sort of a tile mural or something on there. That could be very interesting. I would encourage the applicant to change some of the tower elements. The other element that seems to be missing is G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES shutters. I know that they're expensive, but it also adds interest to the building, particularly to some of the small openings. Commissioner Lambell stated that there have to be more vertical elements. The guidelines show three vertical elements and the drawings only show one. Commissioner Hanson stated that in elevation, it looks like there's a much greater depth. The whole arcade element appears to happen in front of the windows and it really doesn't. It really almost happens a foot back or 6". Mr. Giles stated that it's two feet back. Commissioner Hanson stated that the tower element needs to come out more than two feet. It needs to come out 4'-5' to make it read what it is. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that on the elevation, they show a lot of window shading, which indicates that the windows are recessed back. However, when you look at it in the plans, they're not recessed at all. The plans are not consistent with the elevations. The elevations don't come close to matching the roof plans. Mr. Giles stated that the elevations are inconsistent with the floor plan. The roof plans are slightly behind as well. Mr. Drell commented that the.commission has to determine what the essential details are in the drawings. Commissioner Hanson stated that she would like to see elevations that are closer to the design guidelines. You can punctuate areas and add detail in certain areas and then maybe it tapers off somewhere else. You're still going to have to have the difference of materials. It seems like they could that somewhat with color and somewhat with different materials. Mr. Drell stated the storefronts are absolutely generic. The only thing that differentiates one storefront from another is the signage. You could use different colors or different materials to differentiate storefronts as the leasing proceeds. Commissioner Hanson stated that three elements generally look better than just two on an elevation. Use an odd number of elements. Commissioner Lambell stated that on some of the elevations, they're showing landscaping that's hiding blank walls, which is never our intent to have landscaping define a wall. Mr. Giles stated that on parcel 15, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 8 'err'' *404, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES you won't be able to see this elevation because it's 6' below Del Taco. Mr. Bagato asked if the roof-mounted equipment will be seen. Mr. Giles stated that he has tried to cover it, but until he actually does the mechanical plans and set the units, he won't know. Commissioner Hanson stated that they might need to add a tower element on that corner to screen the equipment. Mr. Giles stated that the building is 8' below Monterey. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's important for the commission to see the difference in grade the next time the applicant returns for further review. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was really struck by how flat the buildings were. The archways are only 6" deep. Those need a lot of work. I'm not bothered by having the arches a little bit flatter. It's an interpretation. It's not really Santa Barbara architecture. It's just the inspiration for it. The roof pitches are drawn at 6:12 on the elevations and I don't know if that's the intent. That concerns me a bit because the steeper they get, the more mansard-like they start to look. On the next submittal, we're really going to be looking at details and proportions such as where you have huge masses above spindly- looking columns relative to the masses. You really need to look at those proportions as well as the details. I'm concerned that the buildings almost look like office buildings. They don't seem to have that "thing" that you would expect in a retail building. They remind me a lot of the Bob Ricciardi buildings, except that those at least are deep and these are shallow. That bothers me. Those are office buildings. You really have to take a serious look at this and be more in keeping with the design guidelines. The applicant was encouraged not to screen some of the backs of the buildings with so much landscape because I'm concerned with those walls as well. I think that you've gone to some effort to hide them. I'd like to see them at the next submittal. Commissioner Lambell asked the architect why he went to 32' in height when he's entitled to go to 36' in height. It looks squatty. It looks like it started at 36' and then it was reduced to 32'. It looks like somebody sat on it. Mr. Giles stated that he was concerned about it being too tall. Mr. Drell stated that he hasn't received a landscape plan for these buildings. Mr. Giles stated that they're in the works and feels that he has to get the architecture dialed in first. Most of the landscape is part of the original master plan for the project. All the landscape in the parking lot was approved. Mr. Drell stated that the landscape around the buildings has not been approved. The landscape plan is only for G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 9 ' Ire *400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES Wal*Mart and Sam's Club. Mr. Giles stated that he's seen approved landscape plans for the parking lots. Commissioner Vuksic encouraged the applicant to establish what the roof sheeting height is at the height of the units so that what you're representing is something that you're not going to have to add a couple of feet to later to screen the mechanical units because that would change what the buildings look like. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that reflect the style stated in the approved development guidelines. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73- 626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 EDMOND BERKELEY, 75-100 Merle Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of revised elevations for a new industrial building in Gateway Industrial Park. LOCATION: 34-501, 34-601 Spyder Circle ZONE: SI Mr. Urbina stated that the revised building elevations show the change in grade. The height has been lowered to a maximum of 30', where previously some of the elements were 35' in height. The applicant also submitted a revised roof plan that shows the architectural projection elements going back further into the building, as directed by the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell asked if all of the elements have been lowered to 30'. Mr. Urbina stated that it all elements have been lowered to a maximum of 30'. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes it. Juan Carlos Ochoa, designer, was present and stated that there won't be any equipment on the roof and it will be located inside the building. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 10 '"err+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES Commissioner Hanson commented that Mr. Ochoa addressed all the issues that the commission had previously commented on. It's a very nice building. The reddish elements actually look pink and it was requested that the applicant bring in a color board showing a different accent color for the element on the right side of the building, which can be approved by staff. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of architecture only subject to submitting revised color palette showing the red-colored element on the right side of the building in another accent color. Motion carried 4-0-2-1 with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 05-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOUNTAINHEAD/SPINELLO, LP, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 135, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of landscape plan for a 2,813 square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive thru. Jack-in-the Box LOCATION: 36-555 Cook Street ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for approval by minute motion of plant palette only. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: MISC 05-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL HURST, 78-080 Calle Estado, #203, La Quinta, CA 92253 DAVID & IRENE YAGHOUBIAN, 72-114 Follensbee Street, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of exterior remodel of a commercial building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. G:PIanning\Donna Qua iver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 11 1400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES LOCATION: 73-280 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato stated that this proposal was before the commission at their previous meeting, however, the case was continued to allow the architect to be present. This is a facade enhancement on Highway 111. Pictures of the existing building were shown to the commission. Michael Hurst, designer, was present and stated that he was trying to add some interest to the building by adding stone. They're going to put an elevator in the courtyard area. The windows are existing but they'll get new trim and a new color. The stone will be on the columns, which are really skinny looking. They're currently about 18" square, but they could be 24" square. Commissioner Hanson asked if the intent was to have the stone continue all the way up to the bottom of the top parapet. Mr. Hurst stated that it blends into the stucco as it climbs up the wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it's just going to be stuck onto the plaster. Mr. Hurst stated that the stone will be set in so that it looks like it's part of the wall. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the plaster will then come out further than the stone. Mr. Hurst stated that the stone will be out further than the plaster. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would be stuck onto the plaster. Mr. Hurst stated that it'll be like the stone on the shopping center at Cook Street and Country Club. Commissioner Van Vliet wondered how it was going to terminate at the edges. Commissioner Hanson stated that they would have to re-plaster the building in order to make it work. Mr. Hurst stated that the stone will be applied to the wall so that the stone would project 4"-6". Mr. Drell suggested framing columns that they actually were real columns. Commissioner Hanson commented that in the middle of the drawing there are four windows together, but the photograph shows three windows, a space and then a fourth window. Mr. Drell stated that there are mullions on the windows in the drawing, but not in the photo. Commissioner Hanson asked if the intent was to leave the windows that are there. Mr. Hurst stated that he made an error in his drawing because they don't intend to change out the windows. Mr. Drell commented that if you're going to make a column it has to be a real column. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would cost a little more money, but it wouldn't be hard to do. Mr. Drell stated that this is going through the Facade Enhancement Program so the City is paying for half of this. Commissioner Gregory commented that the owner probably doesn't wish to go beyond the amount that the City will pay. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that the owner will still have to pay half of the improvements. We're not interested in spending a nickel on, not only a band-aid, but kind of a tattered used one. Commissioner Hanson asked about the parapet. Mr. Hurst stated that it will be a solid parapet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the wings will still be coming out. Mr. Hurst stated that they will be visible because the building is built to the property line, but I think that it's a fire issue. Commissioner Gregory asked if the parapet could be some other material. Mr. Hurst stated that it'll be a wall to match the rest of the building. Commissioner Gregory commented that the existing mesh parapet will be demolished and replaced with a wall-type material and wondered if it could come forward more, instead of being in its current setback location. Commissioner Hanson stated that it would be great if they could do that. Mr. Drell stated that it would be good if they could beef up the thickness of the fascia up front so that the sign would fit on it. Commissioner Hanson asked if they're going to put the same sign back on the building. Mr. Drell commented that they won't want a skinnier sign. The signs don't even fit on the bottom fascia. Commissioner Gregory suggested that this might be the time to create a new sign program for the building, perhaps something more elegant. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the bottom eyebrow could be brought up to line up with the bottom of the windows. Mr. Hurst stated that he could do that and also thicken the eyebrow. Commissioner Gregory stated that if he's making a column out of faux stone should we not have it disappear as it goes up the building. The commissioners agreed that it should be clear that the stone continues all the way up the building. Commissioner Vuksic suggested making the stone column on the right line up with the stone column on the left side of the building. They could have the stone column with glass butting up to it on both sides and not a little patch of plaster. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he wasn't so sure that adding stone columns is the way to solve the problem unless you're going to change all the glass and do structural things to it. Commissioner Gregory suggested painting out the plaster color so that it becomes dark. Mr. Hurst stated that he could take the eyebrows off. Mr. Drell stated that if he pulls them off then he's going to have to add awnings or something else. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that this would be a viable option, although, it might cost a lot of money to replace it with something that would be acceptable. Mr. Drell suggested using paint instead of adding stone and then add colored awnings. The upper G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 MINUTES eyebrow is too skinny and doesn't work with the signage. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he looks at stone as a coat of paint, but better. It doesn't have to be a complete overhaul of the building but could be thought of as an expensive paint job. Mr. Drell stated that it has to make sense as an element. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:48 p.m. TONY BAGATO, ASSISTANT PLANNER for STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR050823.MIN 14