Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-26 *Mmoe �1•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 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 9 1 Chris Van Vliet X 9 1 John Vuksic X 10 Karel Lambell X 10 Pam Touschner X 7 3 Allan Levin X 5 1 Vacancy Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal 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 28, 2009. The meeting minutes for May 12, 2009 to be approved at the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the April 28, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-2-0, with Commissioners Levin and Touschner abstaining. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REOEW COMMISSION `Moe MINUTES May 26, 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 sign has come before ARC twice before but due to a lack of quorum there was not action. The building is a Mediterranean style and the sign has somewhat of a contemporary feel to it. The problem before with this sign was that Public Works initially wanted them on the north side of the sidewalk and now they are okay with it being on the south side. There was a ten foot easement for CVWD which they could not build within, so there is a small area in between the sidewalk and the easement which they can build upon. The dimension of the sign is 78 inches and what is showing on GIS is a little tight so if it is approved I would want the applicant to bring into staff a hard line drawing showing the dimensions all the way across from the curb to the sidewalk. Another thing to consider is that there are two monument signs on this property which neither one are the applicant's nor the owner's signs. The Village Court sign on the corner is for all the buildings north of Village Court and a City of Palm Desert sign. On top of that there is also a speed limit sign and for lease signs and it is crowded in there. Mr. Chad Addington, representative said that the property owner will have the leasing signs removed. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they are allowed a second monument sign in that corner, referring to the Village Court wall. Mr. Bagato stated that it isn't a monument sign; it is a wall that has "Village Court" on it. Commissioner Van Vliet remarked that there seems to be too much clutter and that the design doesn't fit with the building. Commissioner Lambell agreed that it was cluttered and stated that she did a site review in front of Raymond James and counted seven things in that area. Then as she was exiting onto Highway G:TlanningWanine Judy\Ward Res\A Minutes\2009WF090526min.doc Page 2 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION `"OW MINUTES May 26, 2009 111 there was a very linear bus sign and a huge drunk driver sign. So there are ten things happening within 100 yards maximum. Commissioner Levin asked what the rules were for the leasing signs and would they have to come back through ARC to put them back up. Ms. Grisa answered no and stated that as long as there is space for lease they can have the signs up. Commissioner Levin stated that it is hard to tell by looking at the photograph but felt that you wouldn't see the monument sign because the lease sign is blocking it. Ms. Grisa stated that they would most likely remove the leasing signs. Mr. Addington said that the owner will be removing the leasing signs because it would block the monument sign. The owner will place a paper For Lease sign in the windows of the spaces that are for lease and get rid of the leasing signs with no leasing signage on the frontage. Mr. Bagato stated that is not something that is guaranteed. He said that for real estate signs there are certain dimensions allowed and they have to follow those rules and regulations. They are not permitted unless they become an issue or there is a complaint. 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. Commissioner Touschner noticed that the sign is for three tenants and asked how many tenants were in the building. Mr. Addington replied that it is a double-sided sign with a maximum of three tenants on the sign; with the same tenants on both sides. There are actually three buildings that are with this monument sign. Commissioner Touschner felt that if the sign isn't really able to accommodate everyone why bother because at some point they'll come back and ask for another sign. Mr. Addington stated that they are basing this sign on the leased square footage. Commissioner Touschner was having a hard time figuring out what the sign does for them and stated that people would be turning in before they ever see the sign. She wondered if the whole area needed to be looked at collectively and asked would it better to do something that is incorporated into that half wall verses having all these things sprinkled around. Commissioner Lambell asked if the owner of the building owned the two Village Court signs. Mr. Addington stated that the owner has no signage up for the tenants and as far as he knows the owner does not own those two walls. Mr. Bagato stated that it is a private GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090526min.doc Page 3 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION `OW MINUTES May 26, 2009 street and it could be owned by the association. The Commission discussed having one monument sign for everyone in the development He stated that all the buildings in this location are all individual parcels and you can't create a monument sign to address everyone, it would be too cluttered. Commissioner Lambell asked if there is the potential for one of the other buildings to request a monument sign. Mr. Bagato stated that it could happen but the sign code is written in a way that they be reviewed for architecture and that they are not cluttered. The Commission discussed the possibility of monuments or directional signage in other areas in the development. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to deny Case SA 09-178. Motion carried 4-0-2-0, with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic abstaining 2. CASE NO: GPA 07-02 /C/Z 07-01 / PP 07-09 /CUP 07-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WLC ARCHITECTS, INC., PHUC TRAN, 10470 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of construction drawings for a new 42,512 square foot Administration Building; Coachella Valley Water District. LOCATION: 75-515 Hovley Lane East ZONE: SI Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the plans were approved back in February 2008 and ARC wanted to make sure that the roof top equipment was screened and that the elevator shaft came to a point. Mr. Phuc Tran, WLC Architects and the Commission reviewed and discussed the changes. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how tall the units were off the deck. Mr. Tran stated that they were about eight to ten feet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they had that much height in their roof structure and Mr. Tran indicated that they did. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\200TAR090526min.doc Page 4 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVtW COMMISSION ''" of MINUTES May 26, 2009 Commissioner Touschner was confused with the elevation as shown. It showed something at an angle and something straight, but when she looks at the roof plan she only sees one element. She didn't understand the piece that was straight. Mr. Tran and the Commissioner reviewed and discussed that elevation. The Commission discussed the height of the roof and the mechanical screen. Commissioner Touschner stated that the drawings show eight feet on the elevations and pointed out that if the top of the units are ten feet then they are two feet over the screen. Mr. Tran stated that he didn't know the exact unit size and would need a cut sheet. Commissioner Van Wet agreed and said that they were in jeopardy of not screening the units. Commissioner Vuksic asked for cut sheets of the units so they are sure they are below that height and allow for an eight inch curb. Commissioner Vuksic and the applicant discussed the roof and suggested a sloped roof similar to a huge mansard roof at each end. Commissioner Touschner was concerned because it wasn't just the units there is also duct work coming out. So the sloped roof would give it some protection and not sitting out in the sun. Mr. Tran said that he would check with the mechanic. Commissioner Vuksic asked him to also verify that the equipment will be below the ridge. The Commission discussed whether to approve it and have the applicant bring changes back for staff's review or to continue. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the simplest thing to do is to approve it and bring back the revisions. Mr. Tran asked if Public Works was ready to go and Mr. Bagato stated that they could get their grading permit. Mr. Levin asked Mr. Tran where they were with posting of bonds and the agreement. Mr. Tran stated that they had the City's response and would have to work that out. Mr. Bagato asked if they could have the changes back to ARC within two weeks. The applicants indicated that would be a good time. Commissioner Touschner asked how they would get to the roof to service the equipment. Mr. Tran stated that they would provide a roof access hatch. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR090526min.doc Page 5 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REV * COMMISSION `40# MINUTES May 26, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue Case GPA 07-02 / C/Z 07-01 / PP 07-09 / CUP 07-10 subject to: 1) adjusting roof plan to create mansard roofs at each end of the large standing seam metal roof form to screen the equipment; and 2) provide staff with specifications of the equipment they intend to use to ensure they are screened by the roof structure.. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Levin abstaining. 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 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that Parcel 8 is located at Village at University Park and is on a half acre parcel. The building use will serve as a food court consisting of six separate businesses occupying a total of 8,636 square feet. Along with these six separate restaurant vendor spaces, the interior spaces of the building consist of a men's and women's restroom, a janitorial room, and lockers for the employees. The food court will contain 100 seats within the interior of the building with 81 seats on the east patio, 8 seats on the south, and 24 seats on the west patio for a total of 113 outdoor seats. To the north of the building, the area is mainly planted and no additional seating is located there. She noted the amount of outdoor seating because the zoning code only allows for a maximum seating capacity of twelve. The architectural form of the building illustrates a contemporary desert modern design with large overhangs and deep recessed windows providing necessary solar relief in the desert climate. The stucco, standing seam roof, and stacked stone veneer are consistent with other building colors and materials selected to match the entire development. Building height is consistent with the general overall approval received for this site. Landscape revisions have been made to meet the Department of Public Works approval GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Res\A MinutesTOWAA090526min.doc Page 6 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2009 through the addition of shade trees on the north and south side as well as moving the trees on the west side out of the small planters and into the larger planter area that were immediately adjacent. Staff approves of the design as shown with the approved landscape revisions. Commissioner Touschner asked about four spaces on the drawings. Mr. Vuksic said those were six small restaurant spaces for the food court. Commissioner Touschner asked about their signage and would they expect exposure everywhere. Mr. Vuksic said that the building is set up to be a shell building and if this concept doesn't work they could potentially divide it up into six spaces every twenty feet. He pointed out the potential tenants who would require a sign. Commissioner Touschner said that in essence they would have six signs on the west and east elevations and one sign on the north and south. She was concerned that this building would be nothing but signage; like a billboard. Commissioner Touschner stated that this is a handsome building and discussed some issues that she had with an eyebrow and asked if they really needed it or should it be doing a more. Other than that, she thought that the other planes are connecting element to element and that eyebrow is just sitting there on top and not connecting to anything. They reviewed and discussed the eyebrow and windows at the top of the building and how they tie into the roof area. She asked if the HVAC units would be covered by the parapet. Mr. Vuksic said yes and presented cut sheets for review. He explained that they have a four foot two inch parapet and the equipment is three feet tall. Commissioner Lambell said that this is a beautiful building. She liked the horizontal members, the way everything intersects, and a lot of movement to it. Her only concern was the amount of signage. The Commission and staff discussed the amount and placement of signage. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission could condition them to do a sign program prior to final submittal and stated that they would not get a monument sign. Commissioner Lambell stated that she had no problem with recommending approval of the building; however they need to submit a sign program. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\20091AR090526min.dcc Page 7 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE "W COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2009 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to grant approval subject to the submittal of a sign program. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 4. 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 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. This request consists of three new wall signs and one monument sign illustrating the text, Homewood Suites Hilton along with their duck logo. On the north elevation, there are two proposed wall signs. The lower sign would be located approximately 16 feet above grade at an eye level, viewable as a guest would be approaching the front entrance to the hotel. This ten square foot sign would be non-illuminated in a polished brass finish. On the same elevation, an illuminated, 45-square foot, white acrylic, channel letter sign with dark bronze trim cap and returns is located directly above the entrance at the top of the building approximately 37 feet above grade. A third wall sign is located on the east elevation with the same white acrylic letter faces and dark bronze trim cap and returns. This sign is located roughly 37 feet above grade and is 45 square feet in overall size. At the northwest corner of the site, a double-sided monument sign is located for further site identification. The monument sign consists of an internally lit aluminum face with push through acrylic lettering and logo. Lettering and logos on the monument sign make up 7.5 square feet of signage on one side for a total of 15 square feet of monument signage for both sides. Sign C, as noted in the plans, is appropriately located on either side of the entrance. The last Architectural Review Commission (ARC) action letter noted the placement was fine. In the last review, the sign was to the west of the entrance door and it has now been WPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR090526min.doc Page 8 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVEW COMMISSION ` o MINUTES May 26, 2009 switched in the current submittal to the east side. Sign A, as noted in the attached plans, is well above the 20-foot height limit. In the previous submittal, the sign was located further to the west. It is now located centered in the building and directly above the entrance. The ARC action letter recommended reconsidering the layout of the sign to create a more horizontal sign allowing a centered placement over the entrance. Although it is centered, it is still significantly above the height limit. Recreating a horizontal layout would decrease the height of the sign. Consideration was given to the color as noted in the action letter, as the sign was previously teal green in color and is now white. Sign B, located on the east elevation, was directed to be moved and centered between the reveals to the north and be positioned no higher than the top of the adjacent window as shown. Again, color consideration was given as the previous teal green colored lettering is illustrated now as white acrylic. The monument sign was previously designed as a fully illuminated cabinet with a painted black base. In the current submittal, changes were made by altering the cabinet face materials, adding a stone veneer to match the building, and slightly curving the top of the sign. The ARC action letter stated that the monument sign needed to reflect the architecture and color of the building, and lit cabinets were not approvable. Although, a new material was used on the sign to visually connect it to the building, the design is still lacking a connection to the architecture of the building and still reads as a can sign. Staff does not believe the monument sign is approvable as shown and requests that the Commission continue due to the need for design revisions. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the graphics. The representative stated that it is intended that the base be flush with the Coronado stone, and the graphics would protrude out about a half inch. Commissioner Gregory discussed recessing it from the face of the stone. The representative stated that a can is a can and it's hard to make this type of monument sign without it. The entire background is opaque; it's all aluminum that is painted, so only the graphics can protrude out about a half inch. The Commission reviewed and discussed the graphics of the sign. . Commissioner Touschner stated that on the monument sign there are little slivers of stone and stated that stone doesn't come in little slivers and said that the revised drawing had a little more meat to it. She stated that the building is not symmetrical and asked why they had a GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090526min.d0c Page 9 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REWtW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2009 symmetrical sign, she suggested keeping the can the way it is and pick one of the little structural stone elements from the building and mimic that style. Commissioner Touschner said that Sign B is centered and looks appropriate; however, she asked if they could reduce the stacking with Sign A and referred to the monument sign with the little "Hilton" with the lines to the side. She pointed out that they are not stacked and asked why they can't use that logo because it is absolutely stuffed in there and it's not going to look good. The representative stated that is why they had it more to the right last time, to give it more breathing room. Commissioner Touschner remarked that the sign was centered on a window and not the door and with the way it is presented it is hard to see. Commissioner Gregory stated that they have to be consistent with the logo trademark and said that the Commission is trying to have something that looks better in tough spaces on the building so it would show better for the Hilton. Mr. Bagato stated that they could request proof of their trademark. Commissioner Touschner stated that if they are not going to center the sign then they have to purposely make it look like it was meant to not be centered. The representative stated that the original design intent was to have Sign A further to the right to give it a little more space above and below and let the sign breathe a little more. Commissioner Lambell stated that the letters were 15 inches high and the duck is 24 inches and was above the height limit. The representative stated that it is three stories in the air. Commissioner Lambell stated that they are having trouble with signs being up so high with huge letters. Commissioner Gregory asked if the sign over the front door were to have "Homewood" and "Suites" on the same line that would be appropriate for that particular location. Nothing is being removed from their logo, it's just being switched around so that it flows with a different background. They can't use the same configuration in every location, which is something they are doing and it appears they do have a couple of different logos that suits their purposes. Mr. Bagato stated that if they are showing two variations of the signs and you want it to be similar to the monument sign the Commission can approve it and let them challenge it. The Commission and staff discussed the style and logos for the signs. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2009AR090526min.doc Page 10 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RL- W COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2009 Commissioner Lambell asked Mr. John Vuksic, architect if he had a space envisioned for the sign. Mr. Vuksic stated that the sign was not included in the design drawings. Commissioner Lambell stated that she agreed with Commissioner Touschner that the sign needed to be centered over the door. Commissioner Touschner stated that if they got "Hilton" down enough it could be in between the two windows. Commissioner Lambell stated that that was certainly an option. Commissioner Touschner stated that this is a missed opportunity and the sign doesn't do the building justice. Mr. Bagato stated that the representative could send designs to Ms. Grisa and she could make comments before placing it on the agenda. The representative stated that if this wasn't approved, Hilton may take other action. Mr. Bagato asked if they'd rather have a denial and the representative stated that he hasn't received any direction requesting a denial and asked that it be continued. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue Case No. SA 09-062 subject to: 1) the stone being a direct reflection of the stone peers on the building; solid pieces not slivers of stone; 2) look into possible designs to create an offset between the monument sign can and stone that are now flush creating more prominent separate forms; 3) revise Sign A to be centered (on either F or G) over the entry allowing for adequate space (no less than 18 inches) at the top of the sign and the building parapet; and 4) Sign A to match Sign C in corporate logo design to create less clutter and creating a better fit of signage within the space allowed. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, Commissioner Vuksic abstaining 5. CASE NO: MISC 09-115 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM TO PINE CANVAS, 69-640 Sugerloaf Ave, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a revision to signage letter height; Grower's Market. LOCATION: 73-196 Highway 111 ZONE: CA SP Ms. Grisa stated that Grower's Market previously received approval for awnings and signage. The awnings were approved with the GAPIanningUanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200"ROW526min.doc Page 11 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIft COMMISSION %vie MINUTES May 26, 2009 condition that it hides the HVAC units. The awnings as shown in the photos have grown since the last time the Commission saw them to cover the units. The letters on the awnings were approved at ten inches and the applicant is worried that ten inch letters might look small on this enlarged awning so they are asking for eighteen inch letters. There would be one-foot-three above the letters to the top of the awning and one-foot-three to the bottom portion of the front of the awning and another six inches for the valance; the vertical piece that hangs down. Commissioner Gregory stated that the awning is canted so when it's tilted back it is perceived as being shorter. Ms. Grisa stated that the total square footage for the Highway 111 side would be 48 square feet and they are allowed 50, so they are under the allowed square footage. Commission Touschner asked what kind of lettering they were using. Mr. Andrew Basmajian, representative indicated the lettering from his t-shirt and stated that the letters would be white on the green awning with no border. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how much taller the awning grew from the last meeting. Ms. Grisa stated that prior it was three-foot- six inches plus the six inch valance for a four-foot total and now it is five-foot. Commissioner Gregory asked if it hid the units from Highway 111. Ms. Grisa stated that she has not been out there since they put the awnings up. Commissioner Touschner stated that the units don't seem that tall and would suspect that it does. The Commission didn't have a problem with the awning. The Commission discussed the end caps and wrapping the canvas around the side. The representative stated that he wasn't sure if they could add anything there because there is a business next door and there is a wall that actually goes up about four or five feet above their roofline. Commissioner Levin said that if their roof comes up do you not see the brace. Commissioner Lambell stated that if they can see the knee brace now then it will be visible traveling east bound on Highway 111. Commissioner Levin stated to return that end cap farther back. Mr. Basmajian asked if it would just be wrapping the kicker on the back on either end of the awning. Commissioner Van Vliet said to just return that end panel further back and continue it in the same plane. The Commission discussed the ends of the awning and the back side of the building. They wanted to make sure that the height of the awning covers the HVAC units. Commissioner Gregory stated GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009 AR0W526min.doc Page 12 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2009 that they want to make sure that the ends feel right. He suggested that someone go out and take a look to make sure that the awning is hiding those units, as well as the internal components of the back side. Commissioner Lambell asked if they could approve the height of the letters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the letters were pretty big; however the only reason that this may be okay is because there is sort of a super graphic quality to it. Commissioner Touschner asked if the dimension was broken into thirds. You don't want it to be a third of this because the letters will disappear. She agreed with Commissioner Gregory that the letters will be perceived as smaller than eighteen inches. Mr. Basmajian stated that he was happy with that and that they wanted to grow from the 12 inches because they knew that 10 inch letters would be way too small. He also agreed that because of the angle it would be perceived as smaller. Commissioner Lambell stated that the letters are bigger than the ten inch that was originally approval. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the letters at sixteen inches high, centered on the canvas surface and that the Commission is allowed to look at the ends of the awning on site to render additional remedies to finish the ends. Commissioner Gregory informed the applicant that he could submit his changes to Staff. Mr. Basmajian asked that now that they are allowed to have 50 square feet on Highway 111 would they be able to do a logo since they are shrinking the size of the lettering from eighteen inches to sixteen inches. The Commission and the applicant discussed the logo and the placement on the awning. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a super graphic and to clutter it with other elements you are going to lose that graphic. Commissioner Lambell stated that they are down to three signs evenly spaced over the entire linear length of the awning with no logo. She stated that a logo would be fine on the window. Mr. Basmajian stated that on the drawing he believed that it had one-foot-three above and one-foot-three below and looking at it vertically it comes out 48 inches vertically but the actual size of the canvas is 54 inches at an angle, so the 18 inches would actually be smaller than that. If they are going to go one third-one third-one third, he thought that it should grow to 18 inches. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090526min.doc Page 13 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL REV'i�W COMMISSION •60 MINUTES May 26, 2009 The Commission discussed the number of signage and their placement. Commissioner Vuksic stated that three signs would look better than two signs on the Highway 111 side. He stated that right now it looks a little lost and not finished, you really need three to pull off that idea. Commissioner Touschner agreed. The Commission and the applicant discussed the four signs and their placement on the awning. They suggested that the applicant mock up the letters on the awning and staff can go out and look at it. Commissioner Touschner discussed how all four of the signs should work together as a unit, like rolling out a ribbon and uniform all the way around. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval subject to: 1) provide mock-up to possibly increase signage to three signs on Highway 111 and one sign on San Marcos; 2); all signs to be equally spaced on awning; 3) letters to be increased to 16 inches - not to exceed allowable square footage; 4) new signage drawings to be approved by staff prior to install; 5) allow the Commission time to review the site in person to offer suggestions on how to seal ends of bracing elements; plan to be reviewed and approved by staff. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: Mr. Bagato presented the roof plans for Starwood and the Commission reviewed the A/C equipment screening. It was determined that two Commissioners would meet with staff on site for a field inspection. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. TONY B GA PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A MinutesTOWAR090526min.doc Page 14 of 14