Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-26 t ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 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 14 2 Kristi Hanson X 10 6 Chris Van Vliet X 16 John Vuksic X 14 2 Karel Lambell X 15 1 Nancy DeLuna X 14 2 Pam Touschner X 7 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 12, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the August 12, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-2-0, with Commissioner Hanson and Vuksic abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Vae MINUTES August 26, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-330 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JMA ARCHITECTURE, 73-995 El Paseo Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single family residence with a 17 foot roof height. LOCATION: 73-550 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1 20,000 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Hanson to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2 CASE NO: SA 08-249 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of sign program: Pointe Monterey LOCATION: 34-100 to 34-500 Gateway Drive ZONE: S.I Ms. Grisa presented staff report and summarized the project. She informed the Commission that this item was on the agenda about a month ago. The first time it was submitted Staff recommended approval but there was a few items that needed to be clarified before final approval. One of the items mentioned in the drawing specifications was that no landscaping was to be removed. Some of the signs were in locations that were blocked by tall palms, so that is now a part of the new sign program. The monument signs had designs in them which have now been removed. At this time, they are requesting approval of location only. The signs in Phase II have an architectural keystone feature in the center that needs to be reviewed so signs do not go across that. Signs proposed for the corridor down the back are either illuminated or non-illuminated. The illuminated signs would have a day/night feature which means GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *401 MINUTES August 26, 2008 during the day they would be black and at night they would turn light. There is vinyl lettering that will allow them to identify each tenant on the front and back doors in oyster or dark brown colors to contrast with the building. Mr. Bagato stated that Sign-A-Rama had some modified elevations to present. Mr. Rick Salmon, representative, stated that after discussing with Staff there were some locations on Phase II that they have decided to put on the outside edges of the cornices and in the middle of the three units. The middle suite they pushed it off of the cornice and down underneath the cornice. Mr. Bagato pointed out that the first time around they discussed looking at this as a feature and putting the sign where it made more sense. The problem with this element was that there would be a raceway in the back of that and running a wire was going to be a real problem. He informed the Commission that the sign program they were looking at today was based on the meeting staff had with them to adjust it to a level we thought the Commission would find acceptable. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the sign program. Ms. Grisa stated that the signs were above the twenty foot height limit, but based on the architecture some of the suggested spots fit the building well. Commissioner Touschner stated that if the tenant signs are on the outside corner there would be some consistency. If it's not going to be centered then she thought it should be consistent in where it is located. Mr. Bagato stated that staff wanted the end caps centered so that it would be consistent, but the problem was that that the keystone element is a dark brown color and if you put a dark sign on it, it won't read well. That is why they discussed putting it at the end of each of the corner pieces above the center piece. The middle of the reveal is white so those signs could have them in the middle if there is a middle tenant. Mr. Salmon stated that there are only three buildings out of the eight that have the middle unit. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he liked what they were trying to do, but they really look like they need to be centered above the glass because they look like an afterthought up there. He asked if there was some other way to do that. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they use some type of light signage on the dark background so the dark signs would work and if you used a different color that was lighter it would work just fine. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 Mr. Salmon stated that there are basically two projects; one is the office project which is the lower building with the arches and the other is light industrial that sits behind it. All of it is Pointe Monterey Business Park but it is two different projects and they are designed slightly different. The common feature that they both have is the white cornice so they were trying to keep some kind of continuity. The Commission reviewed the plans. Commissioner Vuksic stated that given the architecture it just seems so clear that the signs ought to be over the glass not on the top element, but on the reveal beneath it; down below the keystone. Another option might be to change the paint color in those particular areas to some color that is more compatible with the sign that they have chosen. Commissioner Gregory stated there is a classic struggle where people want signs as high as possible and the building serves as a great backdrop for signs. The Commission looks at trying to maintain the dignity of the architecture and not having signs quite so high. Mr. Salmon discussed dropping them all to the reveal right above the windows below the cornice and changing the paint color on all of them to dark brown except for the three that they have already moved down; which are white. Commissioner Hanson stated that they don't necessarily have to change the paint color they can just change the color of the signage itself, it could be a lighter version instead of doing everything all dark; you can pick gold or burnished silver something that would go with the building and use that consistently. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the field underneath the keystone is a nicer shape, it is longer. He noticed that the signs are drawn much smaller than what they are asking for as far as the letter size so he thought they would have a hard time fitting them on there where they are going to look good and be approvable to the sides of the keystone. The Commission discussed the architectural feature and the location of the signs. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the size of the signs that were being requested. The words on the signs are so much smaller than the signs that they were being proposed and is He suggested that they represent it to scale as far as the maximum size they were asking for. Commissioner Touschner stated that when you get a tenant that has a longer name than say seven letters it's going to take up a lot of room and be very tight in there. Mr. Salmon stated that they made the GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 envelope so it would be a two line structure. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it already looked odd and by the time they try to stick real names on there it is going to look even more squished. The Commission discussed the letter sizes with the applicant. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was concerned with the letter sizes and recommended that they submit the proper sized lettering to staff for their review. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to grant approval subject to: 1) signs to be located below the keystone elements; 2) lettering shown to scale on the drawings; and 3) staff to review the revisions and approve them at staff level. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO: SA 08-329 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ADAGIO GALLERIES, 73-300 El Paseo A&B, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of the addition of awnings for business identification and solar protection; Adagio Galleries. LOCATION: 73-300 El Paseo A&B ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz summarized the project. He indicated that this is an approval for a new awning and signage for Suite A & B. The awning would be above the window with signage on the lower portion of the awning. The Commission reviewed the project. He presented photos of the awnings and color samples. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to grant approval. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008WR080826.min.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 4. CASE NO: SA 08-333 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SARIT, Samir Aghrani, 77-130 Ste D, El Paseo, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of the addition of awnings for business identification and solar protection; Sarit. LOCATION: 77-130 Ell Paseo Suite D ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz summarized the project. He indicated that the current awning is black and the applicant was requesting a change to red. He presented photos and pointed out where the awning would be located. Commissioner Touschner indicated that the awning was not centered over the opening or centered among the pilasters. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with Commission Touschner and stated that the awning has to respond to the architectural features above it and be centered or it would look stuck on there without any consideration for the building. Commissioner Touschner stated that she cared more about its relationship with the pilasters which is the piece of the architecture that you will see first. Commissioner Hanson thought it would be better to keep it low as it relates to the trim piece. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was better to pull it away from the curved awning to the left because when you have a curved awning you need some relief, you can't just slam up next to it. Awnings need to compliment each other without trying to be consistent with heights on awnings. He suggested doing something with the awning where it wasn't the same height as the one to the right of it. Mr. Jim Sadler, representative for American Awnings, stated that the yellow awning to the right is actually a square stretch type where it comes down at a pretty sharp angle and if we come down too low it's still going to block. He understood what Commissioner Vuksic was saying if they come down a foot or so it would still make a difference where it wouldn't be lined up with that horizontal architectural feature up there. He was agreeable to dropping the awning down. As far as the gap on the side, the reason they are doing that is because there isn't a lot of room from glass to glass so they are just showing that they are together but there usually is GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 6 of 15 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 some kind of relief between the two. He explained that he can't shrink it too much width wise because it is right on the glass. He stated that he could shrink it down width wise just enough to get on some wall to secure it. Commissioner Vuksic stated felt that it needed to drop more than a few feet to get away from the spools. Commissioner Touschner stated that you either have to be below the bands across the building or go all the way to the top and then you are competing with the spindles. Commissioner Vuksic asked the representative if he can come back with a lower one that jets out farther. Mr. Sadler stated that he would like to keep them all at the same projection, but he agreed to drop the top down and would give it as much gap as he can on the side and still have some meat on the wall to secure it. Commissioner Vuksic felt that in order for it to get away from relating to the spools it has to drop more than a foot. The Commission and applicant reviewed and discussed the heights and size of the awning. It was suggested that the representative bring back an elevation that shows the whole building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that scaling the awning down to get it away from the spools would be a very important thing to do. Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic stated that they will go out to the site and review this in context and then give staff some feedback. Mr. Sadler asked if he should wait for their input or get to work on scaling things down a little and submit to staff. Commissioner Hanson informed him again that they would go out and take a look at the site and then give staff their feedback and staff could assist him at that time. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell continued Case No. SA 08-333 subject to: 1) Commission to drive by to review the awning in context with the building and submit their findings to Staff; and, 2) scale the awning down to get away from spools. Motion carried 7-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *fto� MINUTES August 26, 2008 5. CASE NOS: VAR 08-304 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NATIONAL SIGN & MARKETING CORPORATION, 13580 5t Street, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument sign for: Carl's Jr. LOCATION: 36-879 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ Mr. Swartz summarized this project. He stated that this was a request for a variance for a monument sign on Cook Street and because of the variance it will have to go to Planning Commission for approval; it is here today for the architecture. He explained that the way the code reads is that you get a monument sign for a large center such as this for frontage. The owner wants a sign at the corner of University Village for shops and retail and currently they have one on the entrance off of Cook Street, so any new sign proposed has to go through a variance. One option could be if the owner were to remove one of the monument signs then they could do a multi-tenant sign. Staff feels that due to clustering they didn't want to set precedence of approving the monument sign and having another business come back and want the same. Mr. Steve Rosenblum, National Sign & Marketing Corporation, understands staff's concerns and felt that they have an option to work with that by creating a sign that compliments the rest of the shopping center. It is designed to match the monument signs in the center. He mentioned that they have a really unique situation for this site. The site is actually fronting on Gerald Ford; however it has a Cook Street address. The downside to a site like this is that they have this great location with no traffic; no one even knows the restaurant is there. He explained that Carl's Jr. operates with about 75% to 80% of its business in the driveway but if you can't communicate to the motoring public who travels up and down Cook Street it doesn't do so well. A monument sign is really needed out on Cook Street to notify the motoring public that we are there. He stated that most businesses in the valley that are free-standing restaurants have monuments signs. This restaurant provides a service to the public and brings in revenue to the city; and they feel that this is a fairly important thing. We worked with staff and the landlord, who is supportive of the project. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008WR080826.min.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 1400 MINUTES August 26, 2008 Mr. Rosenblum explained that they have designed the sign to match the center's signage down to the exact same brand and style of ground lighting, the same block materials. He provided photos of both day and night views showing the traffic both north and southbound on Cook Street. The code meets all code requirements and height requirements for a monument sign. It is a simple sign to create business success in that center. He mentioned that all the other sites have Cook Street oriented signage, whereas Carl's Jr., doesn't have anything that you can see while traveling down Cook Street. Commissioner DeLuna suggested a multi-tenant sign that had the Carl's Jr., logo and would be a better option than sticking a big monument sign over on Gerald Ford. She was concerned with the next applicant coming in to request the same thing. Mr. Rosenblum stated that staff can condition that and stated that it must be for a drive-thru oriented business only. Mr. Fred Evans, Developer, stated that it is important to understand that this is relative to the size of the center. This is an anchor for us and is our largest tenant to date and it is important from a landlord's point, a city point and staff and residential point that we support these businesses that are down there on Cook Street and Gerald Ford. We should be doing everything that we can to get their businesses as successful as possible. He stated that they have worked real hard to come up with a design that works with the center; it matches the center and works with the current signage. It is really important that we are working together with Carl's and that we support the sign and we support the location. We are not going to re-do our existing signage and add multiple tenant signs on a sign because it goes against the concept of what the center is. He stated that they pushed the building against the street so that the tenants can get signage and that street wouldn't be riddled with signs. This is something that he thought would support their major tenant long term and short term. Right now on Cook Street you have three to four times the traffic as you do on Gerald Ford and he felt that the public needs to know and that they have a viable eating option 200 feet off the street. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *M01 MINUTES August 26, 2008 Commissioner DeLuna asked when they purchased that site were they aware of what the requirements were at that time. Mr. Evans answered yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there was something that has changed that causes them to come now and request a variance. Mr. Evans said yes because our economy is in the tank. He explained that when they built the site, they came out and projected that there would be "X" number of houses around the neighborhood and there is none; it has dried up, so we have do everything we can to support these tenants between now and when that housing starts back up. Commissioner Hanson asked when the housing goes back up, can the sign come down. Mr. Evans answered no. Commissioner Hanson asked why not, because then that defeats his whole point. The Commission reviewed the other buildings in the center. They talked about other restaurants or drive-thrush coming into that center. Mr. Evans stated that in their CC&Rs there will be no other drive-thru restaurant in that center because the buildings are designated as office. He stated that if the houses had gone in their sales would have been much stronger, however we would probably still be asking for a variance because the amount of traffic on Gerald Ford is so much less than that of Cook. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the real estate market will turn and when the houses are built then the City has a precedence sitting here that is no longer an issue because you now have the traffic that you are concerned with now, but yet the sign stays. Mr. Evans agreed because the conversation of setting precedent has been a historical conversation with them. Right now in our current condition we need to do something. We are competing against a Jack-In-The- Box on the next block up that has a monument sign on their building that is so big they can park a car under it. We are asking for a very small sign that matches the center. He mentioned that they have designed a sign that is appealing and not large. Mr. Rosenblum stated that if the City was concerned about setting a precedent, it's a positive precedent you want to set. Think of all the monument signs in the city. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Commission doesn't like monument signs. Mr. Rosenblum stated that this is simple block to match the rest of the center. Mr. Evans stated that they were just as sensitive to the Commission's concerns about monument signs. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008AR080826.min.doc Page 10 of 15 ' ; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 The Commission reviewed the locations of the proposed sign and the entrances to the Center and discussed the visibility of Carl's coming off the freeway and coming down Cook Street. Commissioner Gregory asked about a multi tenant sign and not establishing precedent. Ms. Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated that if the landlord wanted to change the monument signs to identify three tenants they could do that in a single monument sign on Cook Street. Mr. Evans wanted to clarify that the Commission did not want to see a monument sign, but would rather see a multi-tenant sign verses a single tenant sign. Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem is with the variance issues. Ms. Aylaian stated that they would have to remove their existing monument sign because they can only have one monument sign on that site. Mr. Evans stated that he would never get ownership's approval of removing those entrance signs and making one multi-tenant sign. He stated that considering that Carl's is one of their majors they thought it was important to request a variance for a single tenant sign in that location. Ms. Aylaian said the existing ordinance stipulates exactly where you get signs and does not have provisions for drive-thru or vehicle oriented businesses. She stated that what they are trying to do is guide businesses through this difficult economic time with an eye towards the future so that we don't make decisions in the short term that will be bad in the long term for the community. She said that the most valid suggestion that she heard is the suggestion by Commissioner Hanson to put it up for a limited period of time after which it will be removed when that area is developed. The Commission discussed the length of time that the sign would stay in place. Ms. Aylaian stated that the center currently has a very aggressive temporary signage program and suggested that they use one of the several "For Lease" signs on the site. Mr. Evans stated that if that is part of getting this Carl's sign approved he is more than willing to do that. Ms. Aylaian stated that what we don't want to do is build clutter upon clutter and with the temporary signs we are over that threshold. The Commission discussed the temporary signs and the length of time that the temporary sign would be there. GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\2008WR080826.min.dOc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would be opposed to a temporary sign out there because it just adds clutter. He felt that their best solution would be to modify their other monument sign on that side and add Carl's Jr. to it. Mr. Bagato stated that they could issue a Temporary Use Permit for the temporary sign and review it after one year. He stated that nothing can be temporary that requires a building permit; because once they get a building permit it would be permanent. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the temporary sign would have to be professionally and nicely done. Ms. Kelly Karcher, Carl's Jr., mentioned that Carl's Jr., has been here in the valley for over 30 years. They enjoy being here as a part of the community and being active in it. She understands that the City doesn't want a permanent sign on Cook but feels that the presence of Carl's Jr., is important to the community and local schools. She stated that if their presence on Cook Street is know, then that would be increased and they would definitely be there for everyone. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant could decide not to seek a temporary sign and go on to Planning Commission with ARC support or denial since this isn't the final step. He asked the applicant if they wanted to wait and try the temporary first and then come back later on the variance or move forward on the variance. Mr. Rosenblum stated that they wanted to move forward. Mr. Bagato suggested that the Commission make a recommendation on the application for variance. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner recommended denial of the Variance request for an additional monument sign. The Commission approved a temporary sign for a period of one year, for which design and any extensions of time will be reviewed by staff and the temporary sign will replace one of the "For Lease" signs on site. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\HMinutes\2008\HR080826.min.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP/CUP 08-241 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RON HENDERSON & MICHAEL JOHNSTON, 73708 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of conversion of an existing single family structure to an office building: Farmer's Insurance Building. LOCATION: 74-426 Alessandro ZONE: R3 (4) ACTION: Item removed from agenda per applicant. No action taken. 2 CASE NO: MISC 08-270 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRISTOPHER MCFADDEN, ARCHITECT, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive Suite 204, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a fagade remodel and A 419 square-foot addition. LOCATION: 73-750 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented this project. He stated that this building is on the north side of El Paseo and is currently a shoe store. This is a tear down and rebuild except for one wall. Commissioner Hanson asked the representative if this was indeed a tear down. Ms. Kelly Litecky, Project Manager, stated that they were hoping to leave one wall existing. Commissioner Hanson referred to the roof plan and asked if the standing metal roof comes over the top of the gable form or does it die behind it. It seemed to her that they should have a way to cap that stone off in order for that to look good. She was concerned that when you take off the signage there is no way to fix it and then you have holes. She GAPlanningWanine JudyNord Files\A Minutes\2008WR080826.min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION `.rr MINUTES August 26, 2008 suggested creating a spot where signage can be added that can easily be repaired. Commissioner Hanson mentioned the parking and access from the back and asked if there would be access to the store from the rear. Ms. Litecky stated that they were planning on having the main access from El Paseo side and it was her understanding that the rear was going to be more or less a service entrance. Commissioner Hanson stated that the stores next to this building have a "go through" and suggested they consider the back not necessarily just for service access. She stated that they have a real opportunity with that entrance to do something more interesting. They also have an opportunity for the back wall to be something interesting. She also suggested watching the detail as it relates to the aluminum store front and the Canterra stone. She suggested losing the last panel of glass on the right side elevation where there is a very narrow piece of wall to make it feel more like the back side of the building. Commissioner Touschner stated that the design is for three stores, however in the back it really looks like it's designed for two and that seems odd. She agreed that there should be an entrance through the corridor or courtyard and that it should be treated like a courtyard and have some kind of canopy, an enclosure, or something to give it some interest. Mr. Bagato stated they would then have service vehicles on El Paseo. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the amount of detail and material change that is going on in the back with how little space there is. The glass is set back six inches from the outer most face and yet he saw Canterra stone coming out past the glass and step details. He stated that the rendering looks like the element is a three foot thick element or something that is separate and stands alone. It appears that the cornice in the front dies into that gable element, yet when he looked at the section the cornice actually comes out beyond the gable element. He stated that it would look odd when it's done. It looks like there is enough thickness in that front wall to maybe set back those surfaces where the cornices are and give them the space to die into the gable properly. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008\AR080826.min.doc Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 Commissioner Hanson stated that they may have the opportunity to play with the height across the back and maybe step it back a little. All the mechanical units are there but maybe that could be the high section and maybe the two rear sections could drop in some way. Commissioner Touschner stated that it looks like there are no lighting plans for the back courtyard/walk through and suggested that they think about that. Ms. Litecky stated that they were thinking of lighting back by the entrances. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic continued Case MISC 08-270 subject to: 1) create a spot within the Canterra stone so signage can be added and easily removed without causing damage; 2) create interest in the rear by: a) adding a canopy or enclosure to create a courtyard, b) create something interesting with the back wall, c) consider adding lighting in that area; 3) cap detail on Canterra stone and watch detail as it relates to the aluminum store front; 4) lose the last panel of glass on the narrow piece of wall on the right side elevation; and 5) set back surfaces where cornices are located to give them space to recede into the gable. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2008WR080826.min.doc Page 15 of 15