Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-12 `rd1 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES May 12, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Ill. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 8 1 Chris Van Vliet X 8 1 John Vuksic X 9 Karel Lambell X 9 Pam Touschner X 6 3 Allan Levin X 4 1 Vacancy 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 Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 14, 2009. The meeting minutes of April 28, 2009 to be approved at the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the April 14, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVIIV COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: SA 09-178 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGN-A-RAMA, 41945 Broadway, Suite L, Palm Desert CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument sign. LOCATION: 74-710 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 NSP Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. She stated that this monument sign came before the Commission at the previous meeting and the main concern was the location and height of the sign. As requested, the applicant has resubmitted his design. The new sign has been reduced in height to 66 inches and holds three tenant signs on each side. There were also concerns that there was a public utility easement behind the CVWD easement so Public Works initially wanted it on the north side of the sidewalk. At that point, Staff went out to review the site and Public Works is now okay with having it outside of the ten-foot CVWD easement and on the south side of the sidewalk. There is landscaping currently in that area and the landscape staff suggested turning on the sprinklers to evaluate the spray pattern. The applicant will have to submit a landscape plan prior to permit issuance. Commissioner Gregory stated that he and Commissioner Vuksic were investors with one of the entities that appears on the sign and said that they would have to recuse themselves. ACTION: No action was taken due to a lack of quorum. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\20MAR090512min.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 2. CASE NO: SA 09-208 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KYTTI ST. AMAND, 74-140 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of awnings and signage; The Enlightened Path. LOCATION: 74-140 El Paseo ZONE: C1-SP Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the property is on the east end of Portola, south of Wells Fargo and Jillian's restaurant. This request is for two forest green awnings and he presented the material and color samples to the commission. The two awning signs meet the square footage of lineal feet. The applicant came in for a wall sign on the rear facing the parking lot and was approved over the counter, so this request is for two awnings and signage facing El Paseo. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the rendering looks fine but he had a heck of time trying to understand the shape of the awning. He asked the applicant to explain the section on the first page. Mr. Jim Sandler, sign representative presented photos to the Commission showing the existing awnings. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there was a curved eave there and if is molded to the curved eave. Mr. Sandler stated that was correct and that there is also a wall on this particular unit. Commissioner Gregory stated that the way it is stacked it forms three different rows and asked if it meets the spirit of the minimal font size, which is eight-inch maximum height letters. Mr. Bagato stated that all signage has to comply with the overall square footage and said that they already have wall signage on the rear. When staff reviewed the square footage it was calculated with eight inch lines and thought that stacking it may hurt them. Mr. Swartz stated that they have 62.5 square feet available and they were at 59.3. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-1 , with Commissioner Touschner absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009W,R090512min.doc Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVI*tIV COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 3. CASE NO: MISC 09-147 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new commercial building and landscape; Parcel 8 at the Village at University Park. LOCATION: 36-987 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ ACTION: No action taken due to a lack of quorum. 4. 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 the project and stated that this was continued from a previous meeting. The applicant is adding a second floor to an existing multi-purpose room. At the previous meeting, the Commission recommended incorporating some of the architecture from the main church to the second floor. The applicant changed some of the windows, added stones and matched the roof to the existing sanctuary. Commissioner Vuksic asked if there were setback requirements and Mr. Swartz stated that there were no setback requirements in that area for office professional. Mr. Bagato stated that a lot of these areas were zoned office professional on Washington when GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word Res�A Minutes\2009WR090512min.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Nato, MINUTES May 12, 2009 annexed even though there were schools and apartments. Mr. Swartz stated that if it were residential there would be setback requirements. Commissioner Vuksic understood their need for additional space; however, at this point it looks like they put a little dressing on one side of a really big box. He doesn't see a solution unless they are able to carve up some more of this to create the sort of articulation to properly compliment the rest of the facility. Commissioner Lambell stated that on the east and west elevation there is a little articulation from before when it was so flat and asked if the fascia had left that elevation. Mr. Mark Valentine, architect stated that they are dealing with an existing footprint, which is a box they are trying to go over. Pulling the existing flying fascia out they tried to pull that in on the alley side, which is really the only part you will see as noted on the drawings, and bring it in to pull it all together. He stated that they added wing buttresses like on the existing building and a stone piece. The building is 60 feet by 60 feet so it is not a large building and to add a lot to it didn't make any sense. The reason they kept it flat was because they needed the square footage, but to also play the two apart. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he liked what they did to the front by tying it into the existing building, but the north side is still a problem. He thought it would be visible and would need more architecture back there. Mr. Valentine stated that they are dealing with almost a zero property line. Commissioner Gregory stated that in their effort to have it blend more with the sanctuary, he felt that the revised roof didn't work well for a building of this shape. He said that if some of those elements from the first presentation were lightened up a bit it wouldn't look so heavy and would help the architectural flavor of the building. Mr. Valentine stated that he tried spreading it out on the floor plan side and breaking it up, but he didn't have that option because it wasn't in the guidelines from the owners. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was very difficult architecturally to work with an existing building to make it taller and still have it conform in some way to the notion of a campus setting. Mr. Genovesen, chairman of the building committee for St. John's Lutheran Church said that they talked about that and the fear is that they will lose square footage upstairs and they really need the GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090512min.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVI Y COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 space. They are also having a struggle with a height problem. The back side is a school and a playground and not a lot of people that would notice it there. Commissioner Gregory explained that the Commission's job is to address all four sides of a building even if no one sees it on one side. He wondered if they had the opportunity to do something that might involve a little more expense to have it come together. When there are different elements you can make them look more attractive in terms of their relationship with one another, and some schematic thing can be pulled from one thing to another; even paint selection and types of trim. Mr. Genovesen stated that they are not making it super big, it is pretty minimizing. They don't have the space or the finances to make it bigger or more elaborate. Commissioner Gregory stated that one of the Commission's charges is making an effort to maintain the standards of the community. He stated that the building needs some serious work and understands that everything costs money, but hoped there was a way to use their imagination to give the building a little more interest. Commissioner Vuksic asked Mr. Valentine if there were any flexibility in the program to move some of those functions to the lower level so that they have a second level that is only part way over the first floor instead of a box. Mr. Genovesen answered that the first level would be for the older congregation and the second story would be for the younger congregation, choir, etc. They are already going to lose some space because of the back stairwell and restrooms. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a need for additional parking. Mr. Swartz answered no and said that they have an agreement to park on a grassy area for overflow for the church. Commissioner Lambell stated that at the previous meeting there was some question if the first floor would be able to be salvaged and reused to carry that second floor and asked if that was still their feeling. Mr. Valentine stated that that it is still the direction they want to go. Commissioner Lambell asked if they were looking at having that building taken down and starting afresh. She thought that if they are trying to base everything around this first floor and putting just a box on top, maybe he could give the applicant the vision of what that building could look like with two floors, keeping those same functions. Mr. Valentine asked Mr. Genovesen if he could use the space between the sanctuary and the building. Mr. Genovesen stated that they would have to relocate the office and it G:TlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAROW512min.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION v MINUTES May 12, 2009 would be a major expense, which is going to be a real problem for them. They have a good pledge program with over 50% of the money pledged and then will have to try and obtain a loan in today's environment; which is very concerning. Talking about doing all these things add to the cost dramatically. He stated that they have been working on this for two and half to three years to get it to this point and to go back with a figure to add on to their program will be hard. Mr. Bagato stated that this is discretionary approval and it has to get to a point where it is acceptable or it could be denied. For the architect and for this Commission to be comfortable, he expressed that there needs to be some compromise on the square footage and is something that needs to be worked out with the church board. Mr. Valentine stated that he would try to work out something by rearranging some of the bottom spaces. Commissioner Lambell suggested that the architect give the applicant direction on utilizing some of the space between the sanctuary and the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was unfortunate that the setback requirements for an office professional zone has a zero lot line and remarked that it may be no more expensive to build a new building, which really opens up a lot of possibilities and a clean slate. Commissioner Gregory asked the architect to submit his ideas to staff for review. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin to grant a continuance subject to: 1) rearranging some of the spaces on the original building; 2); utilizing the space between the existing building and sanctuary; 3) consider some relief on the north side fagade facing the Learning Tree; 4); consider tearing down existing building and build a new two-story building; 5) submit new drawings to staff for review; and 6) landscape plans to be reviewed by the Landscape Specialist.. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. GAPlanningWanine JudyNord Files\A Minutes\200TAR090512min.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIV COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 5. CASE NO: MISC 09-201 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE ART OFFICE, Phillip Smith, 83-810 Vin Deo Circle, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a facade enhancement; Palm Desert Self-Serve Car Wash. LOCATION: 73-220 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. This request is for approval of a facade enhancement for Palm Desert Self-Serve Car Wash. Details of the facade renovation would include a newly painted office building wrapped on three sides by a custom perforated steel panel / frame with acrylic inserts. Car bay walls would be re-faced in a UV resistant high density polyethylene material installed in a staggered horizontal pattern. Fascia, auto-wash pay station, and vacuum locations would all be surrounded or re-surfaced with perforated, painted, steel panels with 3/a" holes staggered on 1" centers. New signage is displayed on the custom panel facing Highway 111 and the monument sign within the center divider. The wall sign consists of 32.5 sq. ft. while the monument sign consists of 25 sq. ft. The total allowable signage this property may have along the frontage is 75 sq. ft.; the applicant is under this amount at a total of 57.5 sq. ft. of signage. Wall signage across the custom perforated panel has letters routed out of a solid sheet of steel. The renovated building design is well under the 30 foot height limit at 17 feet-6 inches at its highest point and signage square footage is under the maximum square footage allowed. Landscape staff comments include noting which existing plants should remain or should be removed, missing utility information, and incorrect plant name identifications. Suggestions were also given to better enhance the plan by recommending that well developed landscape remain, while items that are struggling be replaced. These comments have been issued to the applicant for review. A final approval by landscape staff will be necessary prior to pulling permits. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009V1R090512min.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION rr.r MINUTES May 12, 2009 Ms. Grisa presented a color board and stated that the colors proposed for this building are a more vibrant color set than typical colors chosen within the City. Staff has verified the accuracy between the rendering and the color samples. On the sample board, the perforated steel color appears to be redder in hue and the rendering illustrates it as a rustic brown color. The applicant stated it would be more on the brown side but with red undertones to remain. Overall, staff is pleased with the design and upgrades to this facility. The creative use of materials and the way in which they are applied is a refreshing look within the City. The material used for the car wash bay walls seems to be suitable to resist fading and chipping of paint over time in a solar exposed and wet location. Mr. Bagato stated that because this has to go through fagade enhancement, staff would like the Commission's opinion regarding how the whole wall floats up higher and continues down to the baseline. He stated that architecturally it looked fine and recommends approval as is. Mr. Phil Smith, representative agreed that some of the colors from the color wheel were a little bit brighter than what he would prefer. Ultimately the intent was for the green to be a Palo Verde green so it would match the color of the Palo Verde tree on the side. The red is a little redder than he liked it to be and stated that it should be a little more brown as is shown in the renderings and elevations and the green is a Palo Verde green; a fresh and dirty green. Commissioner Gregory liked the project and from his perspective he preferred that the angle not be brought down. The colors are fun and stated that for this community they may be a little bit bright. Mr. Smith addressed the polyethylene material and said that it is something that is actually used for a sculpture project but is the same thing as bathroom partitions, decks on boats, and playground equipment. If someone sprays graffiti on it we use 409 on it and you just wipe it off. Ms. Grisa stated that it also resists the fading and chipping in a constantly wet location and the bays are always open and exposed to sun and weather. Commissioner Lambell said that it was fabulous and she especially liked the slope of the bottom line. She told Mr. Smith not to lose that; otherwise it will look like a fence around a building. She asked if there isn't going to be a Palo Verde then where are they with the screen. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist stated that GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090512min.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIft COMMISSION -woe MINUTES May 12, 2009 there is a huge, gorgeous pencil cactus there that is about eight feet tall and five feet wide and she didn't see the point of removing it. Commissioner Gregory said that considering the limited area in which the landscape is being applied, a little more attention should be paid to the east property line so that it is more meaningful. Mr. Smith stated that his hope with that would be to create some heights with some cassias and bring it down to a street level. He had proposed cobble throughout because he liked that look of the steel coming out of the cobble and plants coming out of the cobble but landscapes comments were to reduce the cobble to half DG and half cobble. He explained that he did have the pencil plants along the east edge but landscape staff wanted those removed. Ms. Hollinger stated that because of the low wall in that area if people were to jump over the wall they would break the plants. Ms. Grisa stated that was part of the comments that staff suggested to leave in because it is already under landscaped, it's about 13% landscape and if you took that out it would reduce it even more. They tried to achieve 15% overall site coverage. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to grant approval of the design concept subject to: 1) final color to be reviewed by staff; 2) angled wall to remain as shown; and 3) landscape plans to be reviewed by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. 6. CASE NO: MISC 09-176 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, 350 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92602 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to co- locate six panel antennas to existing monopalm. LOCATION: 74-700 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this is an existing monopalm located on Highway 111 by the Embassy Suites. They are adding six panel antennas to the monopalm. The monopalm and the palm fronds are in good shape and staff is recommending approval. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager asked if the GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200TAR090512min.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 landscaping was originally conditioned and what kind of condition was it in at this point. Mr. Swartz stated that the landscape was okay and suggested that he take Ms. Hollinger out to review the site. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin to grant approval subject to review of existing landscape by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVIS STREET LAND COMPANY, 622 Davis Street Suite 200, Evanston, IL 60201 (El Paseo Village: El Paseo Land Company, LLC) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of amendment #1 to an approved project to construct 1) a 27,000 square foot expansion of the existing Saks 5th Avenue; and 2) the construction of a new single-story 41,000 square foot retail/restaurant; Gardens on El Paseo LOCATION: 73-425 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell presented the project and stated that the ARC approved the garden expansion last year and since that time they are going through with Amendment #1, which is basically that the project is going down to a single story. As a result of that, they do not need the parking deck on the back. This project is very similar to what was presented at the last meeting, but is now a single story version. From an architecture standpoint staff is happy and working out details circulation wise. Mr. Stendell asked the Commission for their comments. Mr. John Vuksic, architect stated that his company Prest Vuksic Architects is serving as owner/rep on this project and have been working with the architect on certain details. He said that it is very similar to what was presented before with different elements than The Gardens to create some interest and variety, but the intent is to GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR090512min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIft COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 create a harmony between those two projects. Like The Gardens, the shell structures are designed to allow the tenants to create their identity, which it what is appropriate for the national tenants that they will have. The Davis Street group has a strong set of design guidelines for those tenants to follow as they add another layer to this design. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that the tower elements are no longer above height limit so everything will be to code. When we go back to Planning Commission and City Council it should be an easier approval from the design standpoint because they are not asking for height exception under the development. Mr. Stendell stated that they still have some of the same features previously submitted. They integrated an Art in Public Places features in the two entrances back to the parking area; the corridor has seating areas and some areas that could be art areas. You would still have the same flavor that everyone liked so much, it's just that there is no second story. The second story was primarily office with flanking restaurants on east and west. He requested preliminary approval of architecture subject to landscape approval at a later date. Mr. Bagato stated that there are some concerns with the towers and some of the designs and wanted to make it clear because the project is already scheduled for Planning Commission next week and going to Council in June. The applicant is hoping to start construction in the fall like they would have with the original project. Construction drawings will be back here in July. Commissioner Gregory asked if the signage element on the north elevation, San Pablo and Lupine is a steel type trellis on which the signage is affixed. Mr. Stendell stated that that was correct. Commissioner Gregory expressed that it is really important for that to remain the way it is designed as opposed to if it were wood. Mr. Filday, architect stated that the signs would sit on a steel frame. Mr. Vuksic said that the trellis members themselves are wood, like in The Gardens. It is a steel framework and the trellis members are six by six. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Vuksic how he felt about the viability of that material over time. Mr. Vuksic wondered about that when The Gardens was built in 1999 and it has worked out well with detailed maintenance. He thought that the wood at The Gardens created a bit of warmth to it as opposed to if it were GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\200MR090512min.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 all steel. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if it has worked at The Gardens, then it will work here. Commissioner Lambell stated that the two corners, the north elevation at San Pablo and the one at Lupine are fabulous. She liked the tower, screening with the parapet, how the next building goes up, the signage and the El Paseo element above the signage. However, she is struggling with the middle because so much of the parapet screening is visible not much articulation in that center part. She is most concerned about the south elevation because that is what the condominiums are going to see. In the previous plans, they were struggling with the two-story and a parking structure, now without the second story this building becomes more visible to them. Mr. Stendell stated that they are adding more vertical landscape elements in that area to take care of the impact to the residents. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a walkway up against the building. Mr. Stendell stated that there is a walkway and it actually screens the entrances to the back of tenant spaces. They will have trees and vines that will grow up on that to give it additional screening. Mr. Vuksic wanted to address the visibility issue a little more. He indicated that the mechanical screen is set back about 30 feet from the front parapet and pointed that out on the roof plan. He said that you would see it but it is set back very far and you wouldn't see the whole thing. The Commission reviewed the plans and the equipment. Commissioner Lambell was still concerned because now that the parking structure is gone this becomes much more visible to them than it did in the past. Mr. Vuksic stated that they probably needed to look at that in the context of the whole thing and said there will be layers of elements there. He handed out a photograph of the parking canopy that is going to be used that will go across the entire middle of the project. It is broken up in three segments, but it is a prominent layer that is in front of this building along with landscaping and the trellis. Mr. Bagato stated that there is also the landscape that is up against the property line as well. They are over planted now but they will still have a good number of trees back there to meet our shade tree ordinance. Mr. Stendell stated that there are also oleanders on the other side of the wall. Commissioner Lambell asked if this rendering was more true to life that that parapet is not going to show between the corner tower GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009AR090512min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVII COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 element and the green gray building. Mr. Vuksic answered that the rendering is accurate and that you would catch glimpses of it as in the other one. Commissioner Gregory inquired about the oleanders. Mr. Stendell stated that the oleanders were there and explained that on top of this property which is higher than this property there were very tall oleanders, sporadic trees, and carports. Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager stated that they cannot depend on the oleanders for long term; they are in decline and in ten years will be removed. Commissioner Levin asked about the individual tenants doing their fagade and would they be coming back to ARC. Commissioner Gregory stated that tenants like control over their fagade. Mr. Filday presented some photos of the retailers at The Gardens and stated that the tenants all have their own design. Commissioner Levin asked if they only come back to ARC if staff has a concern. Mr. Stendell stated that the tenants come back to the counter and if staff doesn't approve it at counter level, it would come back to ARC. Commissioner Levin asked if they were looking at any kind of solar panels on covered parking. Mr. Vuksic stated not at this time. Commissioner Van Vliet expressed his concerns that he was not totally convinced that the HVAC units won't be seen. He knows they are set far back and asked if there was a grade differential on that site. He suggested putting some offsets or variation on it. Mr. Bagato stated that in some places the units would be visible because of the grade change like in the existing Gardens. Commissioner Van Wet stated that the building was all in one plane with no offsets in any of those screens which adds a really flat element on top of that building. He felt that they could offset it pretty easily without too much expense. Commissioner Lambell agreed that the back side of the existing Gardens is very flat so if they can make this project have some movement it would be wonderful. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant preliminary approval of revised architecture subject to: 1) review of HVAC equipment screening to create more offsets and movement; and 2) landscape review at a later date. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW MinutesT00MR090512min.doc Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 12, 2009 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. TONYBAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090512min.doc Page 15 of 15