Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-25 e MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION July 25, 2006 ********************************************************************************************************** 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 1 Kristi Hanson X 13 1 Chris Van Vliet X 12 2 John Vuksic X 14 Ray Lopez X 12 2 Karen Oppenheim X 14 Karel Lambell X 13 1 Also Present Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Van Wet noted changes to the minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, approving the July 11, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 7-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES 140e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO: CUP 04-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE LIVING DESERT, Karen Sausman, 47- 900 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 19,000 square foot administration building. LOCATION: 73-750 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith presented the proposed 19,000 square foot administration building. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: CUP 06-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): William and Brigitte Howard, 77-682 Robin Road, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of a detached 18-foot high accessory structure with a 25-foot rear yard setback to be used for a pool, cabana and recreational vehicle garage. LOCATION: 77-682 Robin Road ZONE: RE 40,000 Mr. Stendall explained that the item was continued from the last agenda to allow the applicant to change the architecture. In review of the revised plans the design practically remains the same, however the applicant has added some recesses to the east elevation. It was also noted that the color does not match the house. The applicant has also submitted a letter with signatures from his neighbors indicating their support. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 2 - MINUTES NOW *41e ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Mr. Howard stated that he canvassed all neighbors within 300 feet of his property. One property owner doesn't live here, but he verbally indicated that he had no issues. Mr. Howard stated that in reference to the color, they have been struggling with the paint quite a bit. He indicated that they will match the house color exactly and it will not be an issue. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt the Commission gave clear direction at the last meeting. He understands that there are letters from the neighbors in support of applicant; however what the Commission decides will set the precedence for others. This structure is so much less than what it easily could be; therefore, the Commission has to go back to the direction offered at the last meeting, which was apparently pretty much ignored. Commissioner Hanson concurred. Commissioner Gregory indicated that this general neighborhood has a lot of people who like RVs, who like having these big garages and may be less concerned about the aesthetics. The general feeling is that they like the utility convenience of having a lot of room to build big box garages. He asked if it was fair for the Commission to be looking for specific architectural features in an area where everyone might have the same philosophy. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to make sure that the Commission doesn't force things on a whole group of people who might disagree. Commissioner Hanson stated that over time neighborhoods have a way of changing and today that might be the way it is, but it's not impossible to see better architecture even with these buildings. She stated that the Commission isn't saying that it can't be built or it can't be in that location, but do it in a way that is aesthetically pleasing, and to date that hasn't occurred. Commissioner Gregory asked why this project came before the Commission. Was it because the applicant is requesting some type of variance to build a garage taller than what is usually allowed or because it is closer to a property line? Mr. Smith stated that it came before the Commission because the height is above 15 feet in a residential district and that it also needed a conditional use permit for the structure to be located in the rear yard. There are provisions for structures such as this with the approval of the CUP within 50 feet of the rear property line. GAPLanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min,DOC - 3 - MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 Mr. Drell indicated that since he missed the last meeting, he wanted to know what the main aesthetic issue was. Commissioner Hanson answered that it was the east wall. He asked what the setback was and Mr. Stendall indicated that it was 18 feet on the east side and 25 feet in the rear. Mr. Drell asked if there was a landscape plan and Mr. Howard indicated that landscaping and large trees did exist. Commissioner Oppenheim indicated that some of the suggestions the Commission discussed at the last meeting would be a hardship for the applicant and had a problem asking someone to be forced to maneuver a vehicle that size. Mr. Howard indicated that was the reason he went to all the neighbors for their support. His neighbor directly east indicated he wanted to build something similar. Commissioner Van Vliet stated he didn't think the Commission required that the building be turned to make it work, it was just one option given. However, the Commission did state that the structure needed increased architecture, which hasn't substantially changed. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission offered a few suggestions that would improve the building significantly and dramatically. He didn't feel that any of these suggestions were a hardship, as far as cost or functionality. By moving the larger garage door further into the structure and allowing tile roof on either side, they would be nestling the higher element in the middle and letting the building look like one building instead of two buildings stuck together. He also stated that he didn't understand the problem about maneuvering the vehicle into the garage. When the applicant is driving this vehicle out of the driveway it has to be turned 90 degrees, so then why couldn't the applicant make a slight turn to go into the garage? Commissioner Gregory asked if the reason not to turn the building was because the pool decking would be impacted. Commissioner Vuksic responded that is why it was suggested to turn the vehicle as he goes in so that he doesn't have to impact the pool area. Mr. Howard stated that if he built the structure at an angle the entire back yard would be totally destroyed. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 4 - MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Mr. Drell stated that a part of the complaint was the fact that the flat roof portion doesn't fit the tile portion. He suggested making the entire roof flat and give it a southwestern style that would be a simpler form and would not be incompatible with the house. The applicant could add the same trellis detail as the house to link them together and give it a nice southwestern finish. Commissioner Hanson stated that from her standpoint the problem is not the fact that there are two garage doors, she felt that the structure needed to be masked differently. Whether this neighbor agrees or not, this structure does the neighbor a disservice. She stated that it is never a good idea to have that high of a wall facing your neighbor, whether you have trees or not. Commissioner Gregory asked if it would be possible for this intended use to be constructed in a way that they would not have to be in front of this Commission. Commissioner Van Vliet indicated that it came before this Commission because the height is above 15 feet. Commissioner Gregory stated to the applicant that since he had presented his request to the Commission, he was subject to their suggestions. He also stated that the Commission was an aesthetic review commission and their task is to look at how things are designed and put together. Mr. Howard stated that he wasn't asking for anything that was unusual for the neighborhood. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission's task is to upgrade the aesthetic aspects of design no matter where it is and to make structures look attractive from the very subjective perspective of this body. Mr. Smith suggested that the Chairman should ask the applicant whether he prefers a motion of denial that he could then appeal to City Council or does he wish to continue working towards a solution. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 5 - MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Commissioner Gregory indicated that if the Commission were to deny the plans, the applicant could then appeal the decision and go before the Council to get a different perspective; or if he preferred continuing with this process, he would then be subject to comments and suggestions made by the Commission. Mr. Howard asked the Commission for a feel of how they would vote and if it would be denied. Mr. Smith indicated that he counted at least four Commissioners that would not suggest approval. Mr. Howard stated that he didn't know how they could deny the request when he had 100% approval from the neighbors. Commissioner Gregory stated that a part of the Commission's charge is to look at the aesthetics and make a subjective review. If it were not subjective then the plans would get a rubber stamp. Mr. Howard stated that he would go back and try to dress it up a little. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if he was clear on the suggestions made at the last meeting. Mr. Howard indicated that it was clear. Commissioner Gregory stated that the major thing was lessening the impact on the neighboring property. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Oppenheim, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue Case No CUP 06-08, to allow applicant to make additional changes as discussed by the Commission. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: MISC 06-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Ray Henderson, 73-180 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of color modification to existing commercial building for Renaissance Cosmetic Surgery Center. LOCATION: 73-180 El Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 6 - MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 Mr. Smith stated that the applicant was requesting approval of a color modification to an existing commercial building. The color being requested is called Faded Jeans, which appears to be turquoise. Dr. Ray Henderson stated that the building has been "earth tone" for many years and after consultation with several people, it was recommended to spruce up the building with a new color. He indicated that he had other colors that would also be acceptable. He hoped that it would go with the newer buildings being constructed in the desert and was asking for the opportunity to change the color of the building. Commissioner Hanson asked the applicants why they chose this particular color. Mrs. Henderson indicated that it was the closest color to what they wanted. She felt that it was important to upgrade El Paseo because it could use a makeover and some excitement. She also felt that the buildings on El Paseo do not reflect this excitement. Commissioner Hanson agreed with Mrs. Henderson, but had concerns with that particular color because it was too intense and needed to be toned down. Commissioner Hanson offered to assist the applicants with their color selection. Commissioner Hanson indicated she would drop off to the applicants a grouping of color options that would be desert appropriate, which the Commission would be happy with. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve Case No. MISC 06-28 with Commissioner Hanson assisting with color selection. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Oppenheim abstaining. 4. CASE NO: SA 06-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Kevin Parker, Swain Sign, Inc., 1384 E. 5 Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of new business signage for Denny's Restaurant. LOCATION: 72-950 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. GAP1anning\lanineJudy\WordFiles\ARCMinutes\AR060725.min.DOC — / — 1%W `' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Mr. Stendall stated that Denny's will be changing out the face of their logo and has proposed a bigger sign than what currently exists. He indicated that the proposed size of 11 feet was an issue. Mr. Kevin Parker, representative with Swain Sign, Inc., stated that the applicant was required by Denny's Corporate to change to the new logo if they want to become a Denny's Diner. Commissioner Hanson asked if the sign had to be yellow. Mr. Parker answered that the Commission would have to talk with Corporate regarding the color that he had no authority to change it. Mr. Smith mentioned that the Commission was not obligated to approve the color change, however Mr. Drell stated that they were obligated to approve the sign if it was a trademark color and suggested that the yellow be opaque so that it doesn't shine yellow at night. Mr. Parker stated that the opaque would be possible and the only thing it would illuminate would be the letters. Commission discussed the color, illumination and size of the sign. Commissioner Van Wet asked if the sign could be lowered to bring it into code and Commissioner Vuksic asked if the corporate colors could be adjusted. Mr. Drell stated that if it was trademark colors they cannot be revised, however, the Commission could require the applicant to cut down the height of the sign by 3 to 4 feet. Commission noticed that the sign had a section mark and suggested taking the sign down just one section. Mr. Parker indicated that if the sign was cut down, the corner would be really close to the sidewalk, not overhanging, but close; then they would be concerned with graffiti and vandalism. He also indicated that the stucco portion of the sign could be painted over, but the Plexiglas could not. Commissioner Gregory suggested that if the "Denny's" and the yellow field surrounding it was made a little smaller, maybe the entire field of the sign wouldn't have to be that same yellow. Commissioner Lambell stated that the signage has gone from 2 feet 4 inches to 2 feet 7 inches and asked if that was within the range. G\Planning\Janine]udy\WordFiles\ARCMinutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 8 - MINUTES 1�w ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Mr. Stendall stated that the wall signage should not be any larger than what it is currently. Commissioner Lambell suggested taking the sign to 2 feet 4 inches on the building. Mr. Parker presented some plans for smaller signs at 2 feet 2 inches. Commission reviewed the new plans and discussed the trademark sign and colors. Commissioner Lambell also suggested that they lower the monument sign somewhere around 6 feet to the top. Mr. Smith also suggested that the Commission request the copyright information. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, to approve wall signage at 2 feet 2 inches and continue monument signage. Motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO: SA 06-99 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Bobbie Duddey, 31681 Riverside Drive B, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of one double-faced monument sign at Wal-Mart/Sam's Club. LOCATION: 34500 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC- (3), FCOZ Mr. Smith presented a request for approval of a double-faced monument sign for the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club gas bar, and stated that the applicant has requested a continuance. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if these signs were out on the main street or closer to the entrance of the station. Mr. Drell indicated that the location of the signs would need to be researched. He also stated that there are prescriptive laws where prices are displayed and wondered if this was an interior parcel and does it have to go adjacent to the parcel that it's on. GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC — 9 — err h"Oe MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case No. SA 06-99. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hansen absent. 6. CASE NO: SA 06-100 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Coast Sign, Inc., 1500 W. Embassy Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of signage package for the Bank of America. LOCATION: 34-420 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC Mr. Stendall presented the request for approval of signage package for the Bank of America. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO: SA 06-101 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Malcolm Riley & Associates, P.O. Box 1595 Solana Beach, CA 92075. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument signage for Desert Gateway Self Storage. LOCATION: 73-750 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S1 Mr. Bagato presented the request for approval of monument signage for Desert Gateway Self Storage. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 1 0 - '�w✓' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO: 05-45 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Robert Marshall, 73-328 Juniper Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of 17" 7" roof height. LOCATION: 73-328 Juniper Street ZONE: R1-20000 Mr. Stendall presented the request for approval of 17 foot 7 inch roof height. Previous plans had a gigantic pitched roof that from the back was 22 feet. The applicant revised it to a flat roof, which will be 14 feet in the front and 17 feet 7 inches in the back. However, after the plans were dropped off, it was noted that a staircase to a second story deck existed which are not permitted by code. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion to grant approval; excluding the staircase and the roof deck. Motion carried 7-0. 9. CASE NO: MISC 06-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROGER WHIN/SHANNON GARISON, 74-196 Chicory Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for final approval of a new carport 20 feet from the curb. LOCATION: 74-196 Chicory Street ZONE: R-1 G.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC — 1 1 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25. 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to add this item to the current agenda. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson absent. Mr. Bagato reported that the applicant has requested that the matter be withdrawn and will take care of the shed on side yard. Commission accepted the request. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: C 06-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Rothbart Development Corp., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a PetSmart Store. LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato indicated that this was a major tenant going in at 23,900 square feet. Mr. Bagato expressed his concerns to the architect that the building was just a little too flat and boxy. The elements that are drawn in only pop-out about a foot to a foot and a half, and the west elevation facing the driveway, coming into the center, is too bare and additional architecture was needed on the 35'h Avenue side. Jose Alvarez, Project Manager for Nadel Architects representing Rothbart Development, stated that Mr. Bagato's concerns were addressed for PetSmart, Office Depot and the Pad 20 retail building and presented revised plans. To break up the mass, he stated that two elements were added on the West elevation to relieve the harshness and on the South elevation an element was extended and two smaller elements were added in the corner. The front elevation and service elevations were ok. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the pop-outs and what the elevation differentials between the two were. Mr. Alvarez indicated that it was three feet on PetSmart, and four feet on Office Depot. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 1 2 - MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 Mr. Drell stated that arches are usually for an opening in a wall and it should continue the illusion that it's framing in something other than a stucco wall. Mr. Alvarez stated that they could introduce some score lines to break up the stucco. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that it should look like a different material even if it is plaster, or it should be finished differently. It was also suggested that tile, grill or iron work be considered. Commissioner Gregory suggested adding corbeling to the edge of the arch and perhaps using different kinds of materials to add a little more detail and involvement to the arch work, enhancing the inner face of the arch. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are two levels of concern that should be revisited. One is enhancing the detailing of the building and the other is some of the general massing. He stated that he had some concerns while reviewing the roof plan and indicated that he saw some very shallow looking elements. He stated that when you look at the corners on Major 6 & 7, they would be perceived as a mansard because they are so shallow and the tile gable elements need to be a little bit deeper; and both of the gable elements on Major 10 are significantly too shallow. He wondered about some of the other parapets and how they go back and end on the corners on the higher parapets. He indicated that the ends would be seen. Mr. Alvarez stated that they could be extended. Commissioner Vuksic asked how high the higher parapet elements were from the main parapet. Mr. Alvarez answered that it was about four feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated the elements would need to be completely boxed-in, otherwise they would be seen. He suggested enclosing both of the boxed elements on Major 6 & 7 and extend it back 6 to 7 feet and on Major 10 it needs to run back 20 feet from the roof and extend back another 12 feet. Commissioner Lambell stated there wasn't any detail on the East elevation other than one horizontal element. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the mansard roof would touch-up that corner. Commissioner Lambell stated that the corner was blank without the tree and the mansard is way up high. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the parapets would be ok as long as they were deep enough and the pitch is shallow enough that it looks like a shed or awning. He mentioned that on the roof plan it is a lot G TIanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 1 3 - MINUTES �.dr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 shallower than on the elevation and asked Mr. Alvarez to make sure that it is deeper than what is shown. Commissioner Gregory stated that the box remains the same and the mansard just provides some change in what you look at and if it came down a little it would look more realistic. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if there were a parapet behind it and did drop down, it would look more realistic. Mr. Alvarez stated that they could lower the box and put a parapet wall behind it, it would die at that point and a cornice could be added to the top of it. He indicated that the same detailing is on the other building. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the roof would be accessed. Mr. Alvarez indicated that access would be with a roof ladder through a hatch inside the electrical room. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the water would drain from the roof and how would the drains come down to the ground. Mr. Alvarez indicated that it would drain to the back or to one side and be connected to the storm drains, in the walls of the building. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the mechanical equipment was below the top parapet. Mr. Alvarez indicated that it would be. Commissioner Vuksic confirmed that the roof-mounted equipment would not exceed the height of the parapets. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case Nos. C 06-07 and C 06-08, with the direction given by Commission. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hansen absent. 2. CASE NO: C 06-08 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Rothbart Development Corp., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval an Office Depot. LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 (.\Planing\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min,DOC — 14 — { MINUTES low 14"� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 See B 1 above. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue Case Nos. C 06-07 and C 06-08, with the direction given by Commission. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hansen absent. 3. CASE NO: C 06-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Rothbart Development Corp., 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 920, Los Angeles, CA 90067. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of new construction of a multi-tenant use building (general retail and convenience food). LOCATION: 34-900 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato presented Building 20, a smaller multi-tenant use building. He indicated that overall this pad is smaller, which will have patios with trellises and stonework. He stated that there is a wall that will be in between another building that would screen the wall and a potential sign that may not need to be there. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a rear side-yard servicing and a deck up to it, with a separation of about 10 to 12 feet; it will not be exposed to the street. Commissioner Gregory stated that some of the comments made earlier about changing materials, to make some of the details more authentic, could be done with this building. He asked how much relief there would be, as far as projections and could it be increased. Mr. Alvarez stated that it was about 16 inches. Commissioner Vuksic suggested they review the roof access and mechanical equipment and asked what the height of the roof structure was. Mr. Alvarez stated that it was 20 feet. Commission discussed roof access, mechanical equipment and gutters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the tower element has a flat top; he suggested that it be a four-sided element and to bring the element back 28 feet. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC — 1 5 — MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 25, 2006 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case C 06-09 to allow the applicant to address issues raised by the Commission. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Miscellaneous Items 1. The regularly scheduled meeting of August 8, 2006 will be cancelled due to lack of a quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on August 22, 2006. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-Owith Commissioner Hanson absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. ST V SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\AR060725.min.DOC - 1 6 -