Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-11 � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES March 11, 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 5 Kristi Hanson X 3 2 Chris Van Vliet X 5 John Vuksic X 4 1 Karel Lambell X 4 1 Nancy DeLuna X 4 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant I11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 12, 2008 and February 26, 2008 Action: Both sets of minutes to be approved at the next meeting. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION '� MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 08-40 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL AND MARIANNE TOIA, 46-020 Burroweed Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of golf cart barn structure for its aesthetic blending with the existing home and surrounding community. LOCATION: 46-020 Burroweed Lane ZONE: R-2 8000 (4) Mr. Swartz presented current photos of Ms. Suzanne Pride's side of wall and asked Mr. Toia to present his comments. Mr. Michael Toia, applicant, presented current photos and summarized his structure. He indicated that he has taken some action to remedy some of the concerns of the Commission. At the previous meeting there was some concern regarding the undesirable appearance of the exposed metal flashing on the top of the front wall of both the garage and the golf cart barn. He explained that both the garage and the golf cart barn's front walls were originally trimmed two years ago and the top edges were trimmed with 90 degree terra cotta etched tiles in order to match those already existing on the pitched portion of his roof. The motion detection light has been replaced with a light fixture that matches the other light fixtures on the home. The original plan drawing of the height of the front wall in relation to the common wall called for them to be alike, but when they began to construct the wall they intended to incorporate a 4 foot by 12 foot beam which protruded from the existing garage. To maintain a consistent roofline of the golf barn parallel with the existing garage line, it became aesthetically necessary to accommodate the extra height. This was addressed with the field inspector and incorporated prior to his approval for building final signoff. Mr. Toia removed the downspout in the gutter located at the common wall. The gutter previously located at the common wall will be moved to the edge of the main garage structure. This will catch and divert 90 percent of the rainwater from the pitched roof of the house and flat roof of the two car garage. The remaining eight feet of roof section over the golf cart barn would then be re-foamed to divert the water away G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080311.doc Page 2 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION `"� MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 from the common wall and toward the center of the golf cart barn to a downspout in the back of the yard. The PVC pipe addressed by Ms. Pride was used for seasonal winterizing of the swamp cooler, when brought to his attention he removed it in December. In a letter dated February 11, 2008, Ms. Pride stated that she wanted the flashing removed that overlaps onto her side of the common wall. He presented photos of the flashing dated January 2008 and photos taken this morning. The January photos show that the flashing was secured tightly to the wall; somehow in the meantime it was pried loose. He would be glad to comply with the removal of the balance of the flashing which overlaps down her side of the wall immediately. In order to improve the aesthetics as viewed from her side of the common wall, he plans to finish this edge of the structure with the same 90 degree terra cotta etch tile as consistent with the entire home. This look will also be consistent with the tile edged roof of Ms. Pride's home. In reference to the allegations that he lied to the City when requesting a permit for a gate enclosure, he pointed out that the terminology "gate enclosure" was chosen by the permit specialist assisting them at the Building and Safety desk. At that time, he made a full disclosure as to their ultimate goal. The cart barn has now been complete for over two years without a single compliant. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was clear to him that this was an unfortunate forum for a neighborly mess. This Commission is an aesthetic review Commission and so hearing all this information is something that should be saved for Planning Commission or City Council. He asked Mr. Toia if that made sense to save time and aggravation. He understands that there are issues here that go way beyond the aesthetics, but the Commission's major task is to look at the aesthetics. Mr. Toia understood, but asked if he could have a little more time to complete his comments. Commissioner Gregory approved. Mr. Toia pointed out that Ms. Pride had constructed a gazebo less than two feet from their wall and the common wall of the golf course. When he checked with the City he found that no permits had been filed. He reminded the Commission that at the previous meeting he had distributed pictures of many of the properties on Burroweed Lane that also have their garages built directly on the property line and as such are consistent with their look and blending. Of the approximate 30 homes on their cul-de-sac more G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008WR080311.doc Page 3 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 than 70 percent of them have either a zero setback between the structures or only a single 48-inch setback between the two adjoining buildings. A double 48-inch setback is clearly not the standard. Ms. Debbie Harris-Sherman, Attorney for Ms. Pride, introduced herself to the Commission. Commissioner Gregory stated that this was not a courtroom or a public forum where she would be addressing issues that he thought she would be discussing. He stated that this Commission was an aesthetic review Commission only. Ms. Sherman stated that she was aware of the purpose of the hearing and the purpose of the Commission. Ms. Sherman stated that she had submitted a written package that included photos that were taken from Ms. Pride's property on February 22, 2008 to give them an idea of what the view was from her yard. She stated that they were not contesting that the neighbors thought it looked good from the front view. What they were contesting was the encroachment, the use of common wall to attach the structure, the drainage issues, and all of the health and safety code violations and building code violations which need to be determined and remediated. Aesthetic blending with the community is only one factor to be considered in the general plan when making determinations of this type. She understood that approval or denial is completely discretionary and that the Commission has the ability to be flexible. She agreed that the accusations of sabotage and personal grievances in this forum are inappropriate and that it is something that would be taken up in court and not something that the City will make a determination on. They are aware of that and they are not trying to use this forum for these types of private concerns, but only to express their concerns in regards to the project that the Commission has before them for approval right now. She stated that when you have party wall issues there is difficulty in getting a title policy when a transfer of property occurs and that is something that they want to be very careful of. Ms. Pride's property value and the ability to freely transfer her property should not be taken from her because of a structure that was built without the benefit of the process. She indicated that she didn't see where a survey had ever been done of the property and she thought it would be obviously a threshold issue to be determined. She stated that there are declarations of covenants and restrictions recorded against this property from 1969. She has confirmed through a preliminary title report and discussions with Dave Erwin, City Attorney that the restrictions are G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008�P,R080311.doc Page 4 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 still in effect. The preliminary title report shows that there are easements on Ms. Pride's property and assuming on Mr. Toia's property which are of record but have not been mapped because these are old easements that far pre-date the city charter and all done under the county's rules and auspicious. Something that should be considered in forming their determination is the fact that the wall and the structure attached to it might make the title unmarketable when the applicant goes to sell it. If the Commission decides to approve this structure, they would request that they attach stringent conditions to this approval. If this wall is not built in such a way as to be able to withstand the weight of that structure, we have a big problem since there is only four feet between the wall and the applicant's bedroom. They are respectfully requesting that the Commission consider the written documentation, the photographic evidence, and the oral arguments, and deny the application for approval. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was anything bearing on the wall. Mr. Toia stated that it was an inner wall. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he originally objected to it for numerous reasons. He thought it was too high above the adjacent wall and he didn't like the way it looked from Ms. Pride's house. He went out and looked at in detail and felt that it could be rectified and if it was cleaned up substantially then he would support it. He made suggestions on what had to be done: slope the roof back away from the property line so there are no drains that go on to the neighbors property; do not raise the structure any higher; re-do the entire flashing making it nice and clean coming straight down against the wall; no capping over the wall; and not going over the property line. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the tile is a significant enhancement along the edges and suggested that he continue the tile on the height element. He mentioned that aesthetically it was acceptable. Commissioner Gregory stated that Commissioner Lambell came in after the meeting and listened to the recorded minutes. He asked for her comments. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008WR080311.doc Page 5 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�VIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 Commissioner Lambell stated that there were four major issues that she was concerned with: the flashing on the common wall; the downspout drainpipe; the lighting; height of the common wall; and the height of the interior wall for the golf cart barn. Mr. Toia has dwelt with the issues of the lighting and the downspout and she agreed that the tile across the top is far superior to just the metal flashing that was there before. Aesthetically it will stand up longer than anything else. The height of the wall adjacent to the common wall is an issue that is not the Commission's concern. She stated that this group was an aesthetic commission and that all they were caring about is what it looks like and how it looks in the neighborhood. She mentioned that she drove by to take a look and stated that Mr. Toia has made a vast improvement to what it was before. She stated that she will support what has been done and what will be done according to the conditions. Commissioner Gregory stated that he hasn't changed his decision since the prior meeting. Mr. Bagato stated that a lot of the issues that the attorney has brought up are issues that will be addressed further. The general plan issue and health and safety issues are identified in the variances and the Planning Commission report. He stated that those issues are not being ignored and that the Commission will place conditions on Mr. Toia's approval and require a survey because we need to know what is going on with the wall. However, this forum doesn't address those issues; Planning Commission and the City Council will. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the project on its aesthetic merit with the following conditions: sloping roof back avoiding raising the roof anymore to get that slope; redoing and cleaning up entire flashing on perimeter of structure, not going over property line; obtaining a land surveyor for property line location, and continuing the tile on roof. Ms. Sherman stated that it was important to bear in mind that the roofing exceeds the height of the common wall so if the roof is made higher it will create more of a problem. She requested that the Commission keep the applicant's rights and property rights under the City code in mind when approving the request. Commissioner Gregory stated that this Commission is a subjective review group, not objective. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008\AR080311.doc Page 6 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 Mr. Toia stated that the common wall is already a foot and a half over code. The city code is six feet and the wall is already seven and a half feet. The Commission and the applicant discussed the code and the grade height of the wall. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the project based on aesthetic merit subject to: 1) sloping roof back; minimize the raising of the roof to a max of 1 '/z" to get slope; 2) redoing and cleaning up entire flashing on perimeter of structure; not going over property line; 3) obtaining land surveyor for property line location; and, 4) continuing the tile on roof. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO: SA 08-78 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KEVIN PARKER/SWAIN SIGN, INC., 1384 East Fifth Street, Ontario, CA 91764 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of reface on two existing wall signs, install new three foot fascia on two existing gas pump canopies, and install four 33-inch circle logo's on new canopy fascias: 76 Gas Station. LOCATION: 73-801 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Mr. Bagato stated that this was a request to reface two new existing walls signs and installing a three foot fascia on two existing gas pump canopies. They initially proposed to replace the pole signs, but staff informed them that the code states that if you change something that no longer meets the code they would have to come down. The applicant has decided not to make any changes to the poles at this time. Mr. Swartz stated that they wouldn't be redoing the poles at this time, so they will not be coming down. He stated that Sign C and D were fading. One says "Auto Care" and one says "Quality PROclean Gasolines", but they will reface both of the signs with "Auto Care". Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was the same basic sign. Mr. Kevin Parker, representative, indicated that those G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008WR080311.doc Page 7 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 signs would not be changing. They are inset into the wall and they will slide the old panel out and slide the new one in. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they would be illuminated and Mr. Parker indicated they would be. Mr. Bagato stated that staff brought this to ARC because the canopy was changing. The current canopy is pitched and has a little bit of a design feature and they will be adding a new covering that looks like the Chevron stations that are boxy and square. The Commission commented that they like the old canopy better stating that it looks more elegant and thin and the proposed one looks top heavy and odd. The Commission discussed the orange color around the canopy and asked if it would be illuminated. Mr. Parker indicated that the only thing that would be illuminated is the "76" logo. Commissioner Gregory wanted clarification on the pole. Mr. Swartz stated that the City Attorney informed staff that if the applicant touched the poles in any way the pole signs would have to come down because they are legal non-conforming. Commissioner Gregory commented that if the signage were to become faded over time or degraded in some way were they allowed to repair it. Mr. Bagato stated that they would be able to repair the existing, but the applicant at this time wants to change the color from orange to red. Mr. Parker asked what the ordinance states on legal non- conforming signs. He stated that the faces on both of these signs were not structural and that they weren't doing any mechanical changes to the sign and that the ball is the plastic face of the sign and the structure is down the middle of the ball. They would unhook it from the top and the bottom, the old orange face of the ball would come off and the new red face of the ball would go over the top of the structure. It is a little more complicated than just sliding a face in and out, but it is basically the same thing. Commissioner Gregory was curious as to how this relates to the City's acknowledgement of logo rights. If "76" has changed their logo color from orange to red, wouldn't they have the right to use their logo? Mr. Bagato stated that if they wanted to come in with a new monument sign and have a red logo we wouldn't deny them, but it's the fact that they have a non-forming sign that they are trying to modify to the new one. Mr. Parker stated that they weren't modifying it. Mr. Bagato indicated that our code states that under G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Worc1 FilesWRC Minutes\2008V1R080311.doc Page 8 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 normal repair and maintenance not exceeding 50% of the value, then the sign can remain; otherwise no sign shall be modified, altered, moved or replaced. Mr. Parker feels that they meet that provision because it is not 50% of the value of the sign. Mr. Bagato said that the code says repair or maintenance and you would actually be replacing it with a whole new element. Commissioner Gregory stated that due to an edit passed down we can't deny someone logo rights. Mr. Bagato stated that that was correct, but we can regulate the size and how signs are illuminated based on that regulation. The fact here is that they are trying to modify a non-conforming sign and not changing to our current standard. We are not saying that they couldn't have a red sign. Commissioner Gregory asked if the applicant went with a red ball and non- illuminated, would they consider that. Mr. Bagato stated that the City has the authority to regulate how it's illuminated and the size, but again under the current ordinance non-conforming signs can only be maintained or repaired. Commissioner Vuksic stated that boxy canopies are the new standard with gas stations; however, after reviewing the photos he said the current canopy looks pleasing with the architecture of the building and ties in well. It would be a shame to go to all this effort to create something that is obtrusive and doesn't tie in with that bit of architecture. Commissioner Gregory stated that the original design was a superior design, and asked if the applicant was being penalized for the original design when every other service station wants big bold graphics and wants to be seen with a more modern look. Commissioner Vuksic felt that they can make a statement and get the bold signage, but it would have to be done in a more artful way than the standard and in a more "Jetson-like" style similar to the design of the architecture that is currently there. Mr. Parker stated that this is a program that they have tried to adapt to gas stations all over the country when Conoco-Phillips bought 76. The Commission discussed and reviewed the canopy design. Commissioner Gregory stated that there has to be some flexibility on the part of Conoco. Commissioner Vuksic gave a broad brush suggestion that they need to do something that works better with the architecture, something that is more streamlined and sort of a retro modern approach. Commissioner Gregory stated that they have something very interesting architecturally there now and they are trying to apply a one size fits all solution to this situation. Mr. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080311.doc Page 9 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 Parker stated that it is hard for a big corporation to change the design for every single station. Commissioner Gregory stated that this Commission was not trying to stop them from getting signage. Mr. Parker stated that when it comes to national accounts they cannot make custom signs for every single franchise, it is impossible so they try to make it work. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the Commission has the option to deny it and then the applicant could appeal it to City Council. The Commission and the applicant discussed the options. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that another way they could go would be to make changes to the building to make it work with the new canopy. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to deny canopies based on the observation that the proposed canopies are too much of a deviation from the architecture of the existing building. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to approve the re-facing of the wall signs. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 08-93 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OZZIE'S INT'L TIRE & AUTO, 74-894 Lennon Place Suite F-2, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of two monument signs. LOCATION: 74-894 Lennon Place Suite F-2 ZONE: S.1. SP Ms. Schrader presented and summarized this project. The applicant proposes to install two 20 square foot free standing signs, each with two faces. The proposed signs would be located at the vehicular entrances of the industrial park complex, which would allow street identification for four businesses located towards the rear of the complex where businesses do not have street visibility. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008\AR080311.doc Page 10 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 The proposed signs meet code requirements for size and content. However, the new signs are currently proposed at 8 feet from the curb. The existing right of ways for both Lennon Place and Eclectic Street are 10 feet. The applicant would be required to adjust the sign placement to a 10 foot distance from the curb. Applicant proposes to match the color of existing buildings. However, samples available at the meeting may be slightly darker and greyer than the buildings. Staff would recommend that the signs more closely match existing buildings by employing a more beige or cream base tone. The Commission discussed the location and setback of the signs. It was recommended that the sign be placed ten feet from the curb and to warm up the gray color so that it will match the building more closely. It was also recommended that he pull the turf away from the sign and put gravel to avoid damage to the sign. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, will work with the applicant to assist with the landscape design. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) conforming to setback requirements; 2) warmer colors to match building; and 3) review of landscaping plans by Landscape Specialist to assist with pulling turf back from sign. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO: SA 08-92 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGNS, INC., 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final appreval of a sign program for; University Centre Retail Plaza. LOCATION: 75-048 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD FCOZ Mr. Bagato presented and summarized this project. The Commission recommended the applicant move a couple of the sign locations. The "Goodies" sign on the west elevation was too high and suggested lowering it from the top of parapet to the next element below. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008WR080311.doc Page 11 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 Mr. Bagato stated that the "Subway" sign on building A are located too close to each other and are L-shaped on each the west and south elevation of the building and asked the applicant to avoid that L-shaped look because they read as two signs. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the "Subway" sign on the north elevation needed to be a little more centered on the beige surface and suggested sliding it down a bit so that they have equal space top and bottom. He stated that the west elevation sign appeared that it was crammed in there. He recommended that the west elevation sign be deleted or moved down into a different element off the ivory surface. The sign on south elevation needs to be shifted down where there is equal distance top and bottom on the ivory surface and the same with the east elevation. The Commission reviewed and discussed the tenant signs and the locations. The applicant stated that the owner had recessed areas specifically for the tenant signs and felt that they were well balanced in there. The Commission felt that they were okay. The Commission reviewed and discussed the monument signage and the locations. Mr. Jessie Cross, sign representative, stated that they were about eight to ten months away from the design for monument signage and stated that it would come back before ARC and stated that it could be a condition of approval that it come back for review. The Commission asked Mr. Bagato about the locations. Mr. Bagato stated that they have one at each driveway point and it meets code. Mr. Cross asked if they were entitled to a monument sign for the restaurant on Gerald Ford for Building B. He stated that they do have a monument sign for Goodies and the center identification sign farther down and felt that they could get both. Mr. Bagato stated that a plaza typically gets a monument sign that identifies multiple tenants, not just one like at "A". Technically they could have two "As" or we could give them the restaurant sign in exchange of another "A". Mr. Cross stated that the owner only wanted to identify the plaza. Mr. Bagato stated that if the restaurant was the only tenant being identified on the street it would be fine. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the project with the changes as previously stated and to approve the location and nature of the monument signs. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008WR080311.doc Page 12 of 14 . ARCHITECTURAL R��"rIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, asked the applicant to keep the landscaping in mind in relation to the monument signs. Commissioner Vuksic stated to the applicant that when the monument designs come they need to have more specific information about the locations and the landscape buffers. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) lowering the "Goodies" sign on the west elevation from the top of parapet to the next element below; 2) avoid "L" shape look on the "Subway" signs for the west and south elevation; 3) "Subway" sign on the north elevation needs to be a little more centered on the beige surface sliding it down for equal space top and bottom; 4) delete west elevation sign or move down into a different element off the ivory surface; 5) sign on south elevation shift down where it is equal distance top and bottom on ivory surFace; 6) sign on east elevation slide down and centered; 7) approval of location and nature of monument signs; and, 8) submit monument design with specific information of location of landscape buffers. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO: MISC 08-87 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ADRIAN PINSON, P.O. Box 1778, Cathedral City, CA 92235 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an 18 foot roof height on a single family home. LOCATION: 72-791 Willow Street ZONE: PR 18 Mr. Bagato presented and summarized this project. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the distance was from the roof to the top of the parapet. Mr. Mark Valentino, Architect, answered that it was a ten foot plate with a parapet height of 17 feet with an 18 inch truss. Mr. Bagato informed the applicant that the block walls shown on the site plan didn't meet the current wall standards. He pointed out that if a wall was six feet high it would have to be 20 feet from the curb no matter if it was front or street side because they have two fronts. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008WR080311.doc Page 13 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES MARCH 11, 2008 Since this is a new house you have a chance to look at it now. If they want to go down to five feet it could be fifteen feet from the curb. He pointed out that it was required that they place pilasters every 30 feet or move the wall at least eighteen inches for some undulations and change of plane. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sides were low and high in the middle, but the glass looked pretty high. It looks like a two by six wall with a long piece of glass in it that will be visible from the street and he felt that that needs a little more architectural consideration. He suggested that he resubmit something that is acceptable to staff that would be okay. Mr. Valentino indicated that he could put some eyebrows around the corners and radius it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to the west wall of the master suite be submitted with some architectural enhancement for staff approval. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners DeLuna and Hanson absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. �—'�� TONY B AT PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FileSWRC Minutes�2008�,4R080311.doc Page 14 of 14