Laserfiche WebLink
- Mr. Cannon's proposal, the stone columns extended slightly higher, which staff believed <br />would be an improvement over the applicant's design. Staff believed that roof was an <br />improvement and suggested directing the applicant to move forward to the design review <br />hearing, making the two changes as noted in the staff report. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Noushin Murphy, project architect, 537 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, noted that the awning <br />on Mr. Cannon's drawing was placed at the top of the storefront, which was as high as <br />the stone columns would go. Ms. Murphy had proposed placing the bottom of the <br />awnings at the top of the storefront. <br />Commissioner Maas believed that if the awnings were placed above the windows, there <br />may not be room for the signage as shown. <br />Ms. Murphy noted that the sloped roof was placed on top of where the signage ended. <br />Commissioner Maas believed that the 4/12-pitch roof would work well. <br />Commissioner Arkin believed that the version based on Mr. Cannon's recommendations <br />was much better than the previous design. <br />__, Commissioner Kameny suggested bringing the stone up to the top of the awning. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Ms. Murphy replied that they would <br />not be able to include a parapet to screen the roof equipment because of the pitched roof. <br />Commissioner Arkin indicated that he would be happy with the design by Mr. Cannon as <br />shown. <br />A straw poll taken by Chairperson Roberts indicated that Commissioners Roberts, Arkin, <br />and Fox favored the 6/12-pitch roof and that Commissioners Maas and Kameny preferred <br />the 4/12-pitch roof. The consensus was also to carry the stone columns to the top of the <br />awnings. <br />Mr. Iserson summarized that the consensus of the Commission would be to favor the <br />revised design, with the 6/12-pitch roof, and to carry the stone columns up to the top of <br />the awnings. <br />Commissioner Maas believed that the signage should be visible. <br />Mr. Iserson advised that there were several options with respect to the signage and that it <br />could be placed on the awnings and that hanging blade signs could be suspended from the <br />eaves. He believed that Ms. Murphy could take these options into consideration when the <br />application returned for the design review. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2004 Page 11 of 15 <br />