Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-14 iw.r '4r0 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES July 14, 2009 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 12 1 Chris Van Vliet X 12 1 John Vuksic X 11 2 Karel Lambell X 13 Pam Touschner X 10 3 Allan Levin X 8 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 23, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to approve the June 23, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVINow COMMISSION *000 , MINUTES July 14, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 09-273 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HK LANE, 72-895 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument signs; HK Lane LOCATION: 72-895 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: OP Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this proposal for a monument sign was continued from the last meeting. At that time, Staff recommended removing one course of block allowing the applicant to modify the plans. He presented renderings showing the modifications. The Commission discussed the open white space on the sign and Commissioner Lambell wanted the representative to understand that the slogan, "Real Estate Has a New Address" shall not appear on the sign now or after the fact. Mr. John Cross, Best Signs stated that the client is aware of that. Commissioner Lambell stated that the revised sign is vastly improved from the previous submittal. Mr. Swartz asked if the applicant ever wanted to could they add their address in the white space. The Commission felt that it would give that white strip purpose. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they bring that back for staff review. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090714min.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 2. CASE NO: SA 09-301 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KARL VASQUEZ, 72-180 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument sign. LOCATION: 72-180 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is proposing a new monument sign at the corner of Highway 111 and Park View Drive. Currently, there are no monument signs located at this site. The monument sign has been designed to emulate the front fagade roof line, color, and stucco texture. The double-sided monument sign also incorporates colored rock as the base. The sign, as proposed, will be internally illuminated, six feet in height by nine feet. The appearance and overall form tie in well to the building in regards to their roof line, stucco texture, and color. The monument sign is required to be twelve feet away from the face of curb to be out of the public right- of-way along Park View Drive and seven feet from Highway 111. The monument sign is located on a corner and the sign must meet the 40-foot line of sight triangle. Existing landscaping around the building would need to remain after construction or be replaced with similar landscaping. Commissioner Van Vliet asked where the sign would be located. Mr. Swartz said that with the right of way issue they don't have the actual placement as of yet. He referred to the photo and pointed out the proposed location. Commissioner Gregory suggested that John Sofonio, M.D., F.A.C.S be a little bolder. Mr. Don Swindell, Paragon Signs, stated that he did several different designs, but the clients decided to go with their own design. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the stone on the sign matched any stone on the building. Mr. Swartz stated that the building was just stucco. The Commission discussed the base and height of the sign. Commissioner Lambell stated that the sign will sink down a bit and with the 40-foot line of sight issue the sign will be tucked very close to the building. Commissioner Van Vliet thought that the location should be determined prior to approval. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\,Minutes\2009\AR090714min.doc Page 3 of 15 rrd` ARCHITECTURAL REVItN COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 Commissioner Touschner asked about the material for the sign. Mr. Swindell stated that the base was masonry with rock facing and the monument itself is an internally illuminated double-sided monument sign with a stucco finish. Commissioner Touschner asked what would be illuminated and Mr. Swindell indicated that only the letters would be illuminated; routed out and pushed through acrylic faces. Commissioner Touschner felt there was a little fussiness to it and there wasn't a section through it. The Commission and the applicant discussed the size and location of the sign. Commissioner Touschner suggested that the applicant submit color samples that match the building and a site plan showing the location of the sign. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) submittal of color samples to staff; 2) submittal of a site plan showing the 40-foot line of site and not within the right-of-way; 3) submittal of a landscape plan approved by the Landscape Specialist; and 4) removal of existing signage. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 09-062 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COAST SIGN INC., 1500 W. Embassy Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall and monument signage; Hilton Homewood Suites. LOCATION: 36-999 Cook Street ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Mr. Bagato presented this project and stated that this proposal for wall signage was continued from a previous meeting. He presented current photos and elevations to the Commission. A representative from Hilton was in attendance and he mentioned that two of the signs were previously approved and have not changed. They made an attempt of recreating the elevation to make it a little more legible. He mentioned that the color was not correct and would submit that at a later date. He indicated that Sign A has been reduced down and centered and have omitted the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A MlnuteSTOWAR090714min.dOc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 monument sign for now and will come back at a later date once they figure out the design. They will also be doing some reconfiguration of the parking lot to accommodate the sign to be in a better location. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if they felt that the applicant has responded to the concerns from the last meeting. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that Sign A & C still do not match and reminded the Commission that they had requested that these two signs match in corporate logo design to create less clutter, to create a better fit. The representative said that is the way Hilton does those signs and stated that there are other hotels with two different formats. Their feeling is the lower to the ground has the brass layout and the one higher in the air has the Hilton with the oval cabinet. Commissioner Touschner felt that it was better that it is smaller and centered and given the logo and shape that they had to work with this is the best that one could ask for. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant approval of wall signs only. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 4. CASE NO: CU 09-144 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS CA LLC, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to install seven panel antennas on the rooftop of Palm Desert Urgent Care. LOCATION: 73-345 Hwy 111 ZONE: CA.S.P. Mr. Swartz presented this project and stated that the applicant, Royal Street Communications is requesting to add seven panel antennas on the roof top of an existing building. The existing building is at 27 feet and the tallest point of the antennas will be at 36 feet. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 states when installing on top of a building, no commercial antennae shall be greater than fifty percent over the building height. Currently there are existing GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090714min.dOc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVI�N COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 antennas on the roof top that are screened by a transparent wall will be stucco and painted to match the existing building. The applicant is proposing to screen the antennas the same way. Mr. Swartz stated that this will be going to Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Levin asked for a definition of a transparent wall. Ms. Veronica Arvizu, representative explained that it's transparent to the RF omissions that are going through it; it is not visually transparent. The material is almost like foam in between stucco paneling and the panel is stucco and painted to match the wall. Commissioner Gregory felt that architecturally there was a lot of offensive looking stuff up on the roof and the transparent walls would just call attention to it. He asked how the code reads. Mr. Bagato said the code states that the antennas have to be architecturally integrated into the building. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was similar to the wall there now and Mr. Swartz stated that it was. The Commission reviewed and discussed the existing wall and antennas. Ms. Arvizu stated that the screen wall is only on the rear of the property which is the parking lot. She stated that they are adding a small antenna on the front facing Highway 111 but it will be on the parapet and the color will match the existing. On the back they are proposing the parapet to extend symmetrically on each side. Commissioner Levin stated that these are not like the typical cell panels they see, these look more rectangular shaped. Ms. Arvizu stated that the antennas on the existing site may look circular but they are actually panel antennas. She explained that they wanted to do the same thing that is there now and if they put these behind the screen walls you wouldn't be able to see them. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the equipment sticks up above the screen walls. Ms. Arvizu said yes and stated that they mirrored what is there now on the rear side of the property. The Commission and the applicant discussed visibility from Highway 111 and the rear of the property and ways to conceal the antennas. Commissioner Touschner noticed that there is existing antennas up there now that are not enclosed and asked if the new ones would be enclosed. Commissioner Gregory stated that if no one is to look at antennas, then it should all be screened. If not then you create a funny look on the building. Ms. Arvizu said that when she was up on roof doing the site walk she was trying to find a way to conceal GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090714min.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 the existing ones as well, but the problem is they didn't do it symmetrically. Mr. Bagato asked if they could review other buildings in the area for a better design. Ms. Arvizu stated that they in most cases they try to co-locate as much as possible and they chose this building because of the existing antennas. Mr. Bagato stated that co- locating on monopalms or pine trees is a little different than trying to co-locate on a building with exposed antennas. Ms. Arvizu stated that the buildings around that area are similar in height but they were not interested and a couple of the rooftops were too high and could not fit the equipment on the roof. Commissioner Touschner suggested combining them all into the center of the building similar to a chimney stack or putting them on a monopole. Ms. Arvizu said that the center of the building has a split roof so they wouldn't be able to put it in the middle. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the location. The Commission suggested screening the antennas as a mass close to the center of the building. Commissioner Touschner asked if there was any way to enclose the two antennas on the fronts. Ms. Arvizu stated that she would investigate. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin to continue Case CUP 09-144 subject to screening as a mass towards the center of the building. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 5. CASE NO: CUP 09-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH, 42-695 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an addition to the first floor and the addition of a new second floor to the existing multi-purpose room; St. John's Lutheran Church. LOCATION: 42-695 Washington Street ZONE: OP Mr. Swartz presented this project and stated that at the previous meeting there was discussion that the building was too boxy GAPIanningWanine Judy0ord FilesW Minutes\20MAR090714min.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 architecturally. He presented an aerial of the church and the surroundings areas for the Commission's review. The applicant is now planning on demolishing the office building and combining the office and the multi-purpose room. He presented the material board for review and stated that they will be incorporating stone on the new building as well as a the roof. Commissioner Lambell stated that from a visual standpoint the new building is so far improved and it looks fabulous. By incorporating the office in with the multi-purpose room it gives the big new boxy building some relief, with different planes. She thought the stepping of the roofline was great and the sense of entry now makes sense. Mr. Mark Valentino, architect said that they made the portion that faces the Learning Tree single story to lessen the impact and stated that is where the AC equipment was located. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how much parapet they had. Mr. Valentino stated that they have at least five feet. He also stated that they are also incorporating solar panels on the upper portion of the roof. Commissioner Gregory mentioned the windows being set in to create more relief on the elevation and asked if they would be doing that. Mr. Valentino stated that they are somewhat and stated that they will be doubling the wall on the inside as well as a stone ledge that they brought out a bit. Commissioner Lambell asked if there was stone on the existing sanctuary building. Mr. Swartz stated that there isn't any stone on the existing building and is confined to the new building only. They reviewed the tiles for the roof and Mr. Swartz stated that if they ever want to remodel the sanctuary they could incorporate the tile and stone. Commissioner Van Wet asked about the roof and the tall wall that goes by the solar panels. Mr. Valentino stated that there will be a 90 degree return on the hip. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200"R090714min.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 Commissioner Touschner had concerns with three different window sill details. Mr. Valentino stated that he didn't want them to be the same. Commissioner Touschner suggested that the architect submit a section through the window sill so she could understand it. She also asked about the purpose of the light sconces. She talked about sustainability and felt that lights on buildings should have a purpose other than just to decorate. She felt that this wasn't a sustainable approach. It makes sense if they are way finding, but up high she asked them to question that. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they revisit the lighting locations and the types of the lighting. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Levin to grant approval subject to: 1) revisiting location and style of lighting; and 2) windows being inset. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. 6. CASE NO: PP 07-13/CUP 07-16/(HTE 07-63) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CRAIG SMITH, FOUNTAINHEAD INDIO, 3636 Birch Street Suite 270, Newport Beach, CA 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of construction drawings; Fountain Head/Tire Store. LOCATION: 78-018 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC-2 The Commission reviewed the construction drawings and asked that the evaporative units are hidden. Mr. Richard Finkle, Architect stated that the unit will be hidden. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval of construction drawings as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Mlnutes\2009\AR090714min.dOc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-018 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CASEY'S RESTAURANT, 42455 Washington Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conceptual design review; Casey's Restaurant. LOCATION: 42455 Washington Street ZONE: OP Mr. Bagato presented the conceptual design for review and stated that the Commission can give feedback but they would not be making a motion to approve because staff was waiting for the new standards for the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). This plan must be approved before there are any discretionary approvals. At this point, there is no water quality plan so staff told the applicant that they could bring the plans to ARC and get the Commissioner's feedback. Once we have the WQMP approved they can come back for formal preliminary approval. Mr. Bagato stated that this project is an old site that Redevelopment owns and trying to enhance the site. They are looking at removing square footage of the existing building, redoing the parking lot to add more spaces, adding in more landscaping to get more trees in the parking lot, and other landscape materials to soften the asphalt. They will be removing some walls, the existing monument sign, redesigning the overall site, and the restaurant. Mr. Reuel Young, Architect pointed out the changes that they will be making to the building. They are leaving the building as it is without any changes to the building except to remove a non- conforming add-on, removing the gable roof extension, and returning the existing roof to a simple gable roof. They are reconfiguring the entire site and introducing a property line that separates this property from a western property that will eventually be a fire station. Their approach to this was to leave this as a ranch style building. With the removal of the gable roof they have to add structure to hold up the extension so they added fake outriggers on the left hand side and one on the rear. He explained that they are re-hardscaping with decorative paving and the island is broken up GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR090714min.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION N.rr MINUTES July 14, 2009 into tree planters to allow the sheet flow in one direction to a ribbon gutter and underground storage of storm water. There will be a path of travel for emergency vehicles, block walls along the perimeter are interrupted so that trees are placed between so they don't have any conflict between overhangs of the front of cars and trunks of trees. The trees wrap around the frontage on both sides. The parking has been increased in number by nineteen spaces. Some of those spaces are golf carts so they are able to meet the code requirement of number of spaces for the use. They are proposing alumawood to screen the equipment in the back that follows the pitch of the roof. Around the back of the building is another piece of equipment which will be screened by a vertical trellis covered with vines to obscure from ground level and above. They plan to remove and replace the water damaged fascia and sheet metal around the outside, leaving the rest and overlaying with hardy plank. He explained the locations of all lighting and the landscape has been reviewed by the Landscape Specialists. Commissioner Touschner liked that they are keeping a lot of what is there by playing off all the layers and materials. She is surprised that the lights that are not more ranch style and felt that there was something better they could find. She liked the playfulness of the screening and thought that the stacking aspect, the Lincoln log style, is actually quite nice. She's not convinced yet that she likes the angled piece of it and felt that it wasn't enough. It either needs to be big and bold or toned down. She said that it just seems like it's not enough because you are only getting that angle on two sides not four sides. Mr. Young respectfully disagreed. Commissioner Touschner said that is okay and she wasn't sure that a part of it is more of the drawing because there is a lot of tone on tone and the drawings are very vanilla in many ways. Commissioner Touschner asked if the roof was white. Mr. Young answered that it was and said that they didn't want the screening of the equipment it to look clumsy up on the roof. Commissioner Touschner and Mr. Young discussed the roof. Mr. Young said he could see pitching it so that it is artificially pitched out. Commissioner Touschner asked about the front door and Mr. Young stated that they are keeping it. Commissioner Touschner said that she didn't care for the door and felt that it didn't do the remodel justice and suggested they look at the color or stain. Mr. Young stated that they could take a look at that. GAPIanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2009WR090714min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVI- N COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 Mr. Young said that the remodel was intended to be unremarkable. Their goal was intended to be a soft solution to something that is generally harsh. Commissioner Touschner stated that she thought they were doing that with the materials and now it is just the refinement of the shape. Commissioner Levin asked about the property line running down the middle of the driveway. Mr. Bagato said that this will be a shared driveway into the fire department. Commissioner Levin asked that they submit an updated parcel map. Commissioner Gregory asked why the walls were located where they are instead of being shoved over so the trees go on the stripes as opposed to the reverse. He stated that typically they plant trees on stripes to avoid potential contact with bumpers. He thought that it might be better to shift it over half a space. Mr. Young said that he would submit this request to the Landscape Specialist. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the roof material was. Mr. Young indicated that it is snow coated over with gravel and tar. ACTION: Plans reviewed for conceptual design review only. No action was taken. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion of a moratorium on the Recreational Vehicle permit approval process. Mr. Bagato stated that at the last meeting there was a discussion to place a moratorium on approvals of Recreational Vehicles (RV) while in the process of updating the ordinance. He said that the Planning Commission was informed and they were similarly concerned and noticed a difference between Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) and South Palm Desert. He stated that people already have the RVs on their property so the problem is how we would handle the applications during this process. He thought that once the property owner is cited and the moratorium is in place staff would have to develop a list of applications that would be approved/denied after the moratorium has ended. Commissioner Van Vliet didn't know what the moratorium would really accomplish other than stopping the applications from coming through. Mr. Bagato said that it would stop the approvals until there GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVA Minutes\2009WR090714min.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REFEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 is a new code because you don't want to approve something where you might not like it once the standards have changed. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the ARC is really tight on their ability to approve these RVs and most are denied. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would be so much better to have some guidelines to assist them in this process. He also thought it would be a good idea to have a list during the moratorium phase and approve or deny them once the moratorium is lifted and the code ordinance has been changed. Having a RV is a rare situation that works as far as substantial screening. Mr. Frank Taylor, resident of PDCC stated that the lots in the south end of Palm Desert are pretty large and the ordinance addresses space issues. On the larger lots you can put the RVs way back on the sides and even in the backyard with proper screening. However, the majority of lots in the PDCC are only 6,000 square feet and the lots just can't handle the RVs. Mr. Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager stated that there are things that have been approved in the past that would not be approved now. We do need some sort of consistence interpretation. The visual impact has been very problematic. Commissioner Levin asked if someone sold their house and moved out can the new owner put his boat where the old boat was. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated that screening for a utility trailer is not necessarily acceptable screening for a RV. Commissioner Lambell wanted to verify that the ARC can recommend a moratorium and asked if it has to go to Planning. Ms. Aylaian stated that the Planning Commission did not take official action since it was not on the agenda, but they seemed to agree that it was problematic. Commissioner Levin asked if the recommendation would then go directly to City Council. Ms. Aylaian said that it would go to City Council. She explained that the City Council has already directed staff to revise the ordinance and bring it forward for consideration. That process is ongoing and will take several months to complete. If we ask the Council for a moratorium and they pass it that would mean that staff would not be bringing cases to the ARC until we have our new ordinance in place. If there were code citations, we would have to talk with the attorneys to find out if we could give the applicant an extended GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A MinutesT WMROW714min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 period of time to address this while the moratorium was in place or if they would be required to move their RV from the premises and store it elsewhere. It means that for the next several months until we have a new ordinance in place, ARC either continues to deal with them as they come forward, approve them if it is appropriate, deny them if not, or get a couple months hiatus if the City Council approves a moratorium. Commissioner Gregory said that he is inclined to go for the hiatus simply because it is a difficult subject and difficult for the Commissioner's to be consistent. He was concerned that if they were to vote in a particular way on a certain situation and when the new ordinance comes into effect we have created a situation where the person would appeal. It might be better to give it a rest until we have some real guidelines and the Commission will be able to do a better job. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it made sense but it would only make sense if we allow people to have a grace period on their RVs because somebody might have something perfectly legitimate that they could get approved on a big lot. Mr. Bagato stated there are some cases that staff can approve over the counter and the ones that staff can't approve go through ARC. Mr. Ponder stated that he hoped they don't suspend the current ordinance while this is being researched. Things build up and people use it to bring in other things besides RVs that may not be appropriate. He said that a lot of jurisdictions require that RVs go to a storage facility. Ms. Aylaian stated that it is possible that the City Council may after considering everything will take a look at the existing ordinance and decide that it is okay with the way it is. Commissioner Levin asked if it is a 90-day moratorium what happens to somebody that gets cited during that period. Ms. Aylaian stated that staff would have to check with the attorney. Commissioner Levin stated that the application be pended and not acted on during that time while waiting to get direction from City Council. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that is the only fair way because we are removing the approval process from them and it doesn't seem fair. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to recommend that City Council adopt a moratorium on approvals of Recreational Vehicle permits while new standards are being researched and possible adoption of new ordinance. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090714min.doc Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE 1 EW COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 2009 V1. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Touschner, seconded by Commissioner Gregory to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090714min.doc Page 15 of 15 �w✓ two(