Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-12 , f � � �-'���'�\ CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES MARCH 12, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** 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 4 1 Kristi Hanson X 4 1 Neil Lingle X 3 2 Richard O'Donnell X 5 0 Chris Van Vliet X 5 0 John Vuksic X 5 0 Ray Lopez X 3 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 26, 2002 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of February 26, 2002. The motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner Lingle abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Drell presented revised elevations for the Robinson's May remodel for comments only. They also sent an alternative plan, which they can't 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES afford to do. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he'd like to see that plan. Robinson's May sent this plan because originally they had discussed the City chipping in some money. Mr. Drell stated that unfortunately if the City put in any money it would become a prevailing wage job and the job will end up costing Robinson's $3 million dollars more. They also presented a plan that they could do by re-arranging their existing budget. This plan is the same as the other, except the parapet is not bumped up. Mr. Drell's suggestion to Robinson's was to break up the middle horizontal, move the canopy up and out and extend it beyond the alcove and add more palms. Mr. Drell stated that the west elevation will have a planter out in the front and has been stepped out a little bit. There will be a sign on this elevation. There will be a color break between the top and the bottom. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this is a huge improvement. Mr. Drell commented that with some work on the overhang, it will be a little bit better. The proposed overhang is very small and does not come out beyond the building. He is suggesting bringing it out beyond the building line and moving it up to break up the horizontal. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the cost of the project should not be a concern of the Commission. Mr. Drell stated that this is a $27 million dollar project and the changes that the Commission are requesting may cost $300,000. The parking structure is a $14 million dollar project, which the City is paying $10 million dollars toward. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he will not vote for anything less than what is being proposed. He commented that it's lacking the connection between the two entrances with a shade structure on the south elevation. He commented that they are doing a lot of cosmetic stuff and not putting any money into the entrances at all. Mr. Drell stated that they finally understood the notice of action that said to remove the mansard roof. They asked if they could just put a different kind of tile on it. Mr. Drell told them that what it meant was to remove the mansard roof. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that they take some of the money that they may be putting in the north elevation and put it in the south elevation. Mr. Drell stated that he will relay all comments made by the Commission to Robinson's May. 2 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES A. Final Drawinps 1. CASE NO.: C 02-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� ROB SANFORD, REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, 78060 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of sign program. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon ZONE: PC 2 Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he reviewed the sign heights for the different shops and found that the "Optometrist" sign appears to be too big and suggested that the letter size be changed to 18" instead of 24", the "Pizza" shop sign is proportionate, the "Florist" sign is proportionate, the "Beauty Supply" sign should be 18" instead of 21", the "Dry Cleaning" sign is proportionate and the last "Pizza Shop" sign on the south elevation should be 18" instead of 24". Mr. Smith stated that there are also other control factors for signage. Signs will be allowed at a maximum of 80% of the width with 6" top and bottom borders. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he was commenting on the proportions on the locations on the buildings. He commented that some of the signs appear to be too big. Mr. Smith stated that they would not meet the criteria. Mr. Drell asked if these are actual tenants shown in the packet. Rob Sanford, applicant, stated that these are just examples and not actual tenants. Mr. Bagato stated that the lettering is reverse channel with through the face lighting. Mr. Alvarez commented that this sign program will establish the criteria for staff to approve over the counter. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he has no objections to this sign program. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested approving the colors only. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that a 6" border seems to be very small and some signs may need more space than others. Mr. Drell stated that it could depend on whether the lettering was upper case or lower case. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission may approve a maximum of four colors. The applicant is requesting three colors at this time, but may come back with a fourth color for approval. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R020312..min.wpd 3 �v �rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that this could be left to the judgement of staff to approve over the counter. Staff would refer any questionable applications to the ARC for review. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he is concerned about proportions. He suggested that if a sign has logos, he would like the ARC to see it. Mr. Sanford stated that the written sign criteria calls for a tenant sign not to exceed 1 per square foot for each linear foot of frontage. Criteria number two is that the sign cannot exceed 80% of the store front or any architectural element that the sign would appear on. He commented that there are limitations to the 80% coverage and limitations with respect to the sign bands as it relates to the top and bottom. Lastly, Mr. Sanford commented that there are limitations as to the sign height. He stated that these are all basic standards that are written in the sign criteria. He commented that as long as that criteria can be met, then the issue of whether it be 24" or 18" on the lettering will be a function of whether it meets all the other criteria. He stated that it will be fairly safe in coming up with a sign that works given that criteria. He stated that it would be nice to give the tenants some direction as to the kind of signage that it appears that they are going to be able to get, i.e. reverse halo, individual channel letters, one square foot for each linear foot of frontage not to exceed 50 square feet, architectural band size that could possibly reduce the size of the sign. Mr. Sanford stated that he would like to be able to tell a tenant, generally speaking, what the sign criteria looks like and have everything spelled out in written form. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to grant approval of colors, sign locations and letter size. Motion carried 4-0-2-1 with Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 02-28 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CLEAR SIGN & DESIGN, 170 Navajo Street, San Marcos, CA 92069 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of business signage for Dyson & Dyson. LOCATION: 44200 Town Center Way ZONE: SA 02-28 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gmin�AR020312..min.wpd 4 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES Tim Mowery, applicant, was present and stated that when he was at the last ARC meeting he presented three photographs to the Commission. He commented that the ARC liked the west elevation design. He stated that the west elevation photo was not to scale, as compared to the others. He presented current photos of the area in question. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in the previous submittal, the west elevation looked more in proportion. He commented that the current submittal shows a lot of sign. Mr. Mowery commented that the way the Dyson & Dyson logo was superimposed on the picture, the south, north and west elevations of the buildings from the beam to the top of the stucco is 60" with a 20" beam. He stated that the lettering is 18", as was before, which leaves approximately 21" of stucco space in between. Mr. Mowery commented that all the signs are the same height, however, the width of the west elevation from the straight edge of the abuttement is 31', whereas the north and south elevations are 37'. He stated that the north and south elevation signs would appear to be even smaller than on the west side. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the Commission asked for these proportions at the last meeting. Mr. Mowery stated that they did not increase the sign size. He commented that they did not have the exact measurements at the last meeting. He stated that they came in for color approval initially and the sizing was brought up later. Commissioner Gregory stated that the signs appear to be a little larger than the prior submittal. He asked if the current photos are what the signs will actually look like. Mr. Mowery stated that the current photos are what the signs will actually look like. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission appears to like the smaller size sign. He suggested possibly making the lettering smaller than 18" in vertical height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that at the last meeting the Commission liked the proportion of the west elevation for all the signs. Mr. Drell stated that they are saying that 18" letters may be too big. Commissioner Gregory stated that the sign program allows for maximum size and the ARC tries to find something that they feel is proportionate to the building. Mr. Mowery stated that the lettering for the signs came from the coastal offices and are already pre-fabricated. Commissioner Van Vliet asked for confirmation of the height from the top of the header to the top of the parapet. Mr. Mowery stated that it is 60". G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�,4gminWR020312..min.wpd 5 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that the area in question is 60" so it scales at around 13" with the gap on the top at almost 20" and the gap on the bottom is 24". Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to confirm proportions of Exhibit A (in file) and confirming smaller sign at 15" maximum height due to proportions. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 97-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� SHAUN HYMAN, WALGREENS, 44- 830 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Revision to sign program. LOCATION: 44-830 Monterey Avenue; Walgreens ZONE: R-1 Mr. Drell advised the Commission that Walgreens has recently approved to operate 24 hours per day and wishes to add that information to its wall and freestanding signs. This is an opportunity to improved the existing freestanding sign. He suggested eliminating the red background and the can sign. Commissioner Gregory suggested pulling the turf away from the sign because the sprinklers are spraying the sign and replace the turf with low plantings. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to continue the request to allow the applicant to make the following changes. (1) Remove turf 4' around the base of the monument sign and replace it with low plantings and drip emitters, (2) change red background to another color, and (3) reduce clutter on sign face. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: TT 30025 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020312..min.wpd 6 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 74-333 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval for four model homes in a 16-lot subdivision. Petunia Place II LOCATION: Petunia Place II; east side of Shepherd Lane, west of Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the P1.1 elevation there is a nook, which is supposed to be some kind of bay window. He suggested increasing the angles a little bit they could actually get a thickened wall there for the window. He also commented that on P2.1 Option B on the garage, they should recess the garage doors about 12" to look like Option A instead of the flat wall that they have. He stated that they have more than enough depth there to do it. Commissioner Gregory asked if a suggestion should be made to make it look a little different from the previous development, i.e. changing the colors or roof tiles so that there is some difference. Mr. Smith stated that this development is over 1,000 feet away from the previous development. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it really doesn't matter that much. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of architecture only subject to (1) revising P1.1 by changing the angle of the nook area, thickening the wall in this area and insetting the window, and (2) revising P2.1 Option B to bring garage doors in to look like Option A. Motion carried 6-0-0-1with Commissioner Hanson absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 02-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� STEVEN KATZ, 40-743 Cabana Court, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of duct work on roof of single family residence. LOCATION: 40-743 Cabana Court G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020312..min.wpd � �rrr+�" ''�r+►�' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to add the above item to the agenda for consideration of an installation of swamp cooler duct work on the roof of a single family residence. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant, Steven Katz, is present to answer any questions. Mr. Bagato stated the rear of his property faces Hovley Lane East. The applicant installed a swamp cooler with duct work on the roof without a building permit. He stated that staff did not feel comfortable approving this, even if the duct work was painted. The applicant has been cited by the Code Compliance Department because there was a complaint that a woman was blinded by the sun while driving down Hovley Lane. Mr. Bagato stated that you can't see the duct work from the front of the property. The concern is on the rear of the home which is visible from Hovley. Mr. Katz stated that the duct work was installed on the roof because the house has scissor trusses, not full trusses and there was no other way to get the duct work in the attic. He stated that he put two ducts in; one for the master bedroom and one for the living room. He stated that he did not pull a permit because he thought that the code stated that if labor and materials were less than $600., a permit was not required. Mr. Katz stated that he didn't realize with the City, this was not the case. He commented that he did the work himself and he intended to paint the duct work to match the mission tile, but has not done that yet. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he does not know where else he could run the duct. Mr. Drell asked whether or not the air would heat up if the duct was on the roof defeating the purpose of the swamp cooler. Commissioner Gregory stated that it would reduce the efficiency. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the applicant was in the trade. Mr. Katz stated that he was. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if he made the sheet metal work. Mr. Katz stated that he did. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if it would be possible to build a chimney surround and go in with several round ducts into the roof to obscure the duct. Mr. Katz stated that the duct work coming out of the back of the swamp cooler is 20" square. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if he could use a splitter and divide it up into three round ducts and then have the chimney surrounded with a cricket behind it so that the round ducts could go in through the cricket. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin�,4R020312..min.wpd g �w�' �rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Katz asked if he could build a pony wall in front of the duct. He commented that he never looked at it from Hovley Lane. He looked at it from his side yard and front of the house, but never from Hovley. Mr. Katz stated that he would like to build a pony wall, add flashing, stucco and cap it with the same mission tile. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the Commission would need to see it. Commissioner Gregory stated that the Commission is charged with making sure that everywhere you look it looks nice. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the spacing is on the trusses. Mr. Katz stated that they are 24" apart. Commissioner Vuksic suggested running the duct down between the trusses. Mr. Katz stated that there is no access space in that location. He commented that the only access space is at the top of the hip going into the closet area where the ceiling height is dropped. He stated that he only has 10" of space available with the scissor truss. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with a sketch of proposed screening for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 02-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� MCCOY CREATIVE CONTRACTORS & INTERIORS, INC., 6390 Meadows Court, Malibu, CA 90265 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 10,000 square foot, two-story office/warehouse building. (7,500 square foot office; 2,500 square foot warehouse) LOCATION: Ritter Circle; Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 17191 ZONE: SI Mr. Bagato stated that this item had been continued by the ARC. He stated that the architect, Mark Valentino, has returned with a different proposal. He has changed the style and added pop-outs, open window lighting, enclosed stairway, minimal architecture on the rear elevation and no change to the landscaping. The applicant received preliminary G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020312..min.wpd 9 �rr►' � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES approvai of landscaping the last time he was at ARC. Mr. Valentino stated that he moved some of the plantings since when he enclosed the center portion for the elevator, it put some of the plantings in the shade. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he never understands when someone throws a trim detail around every window and door. He stated that he would rather see them not even bother to do that. He suggested picking a couple of spots to introduce an element. Mr. Valentino stated that the windows are set in 2 x 6 walls. Commissioner Vuksic stated that from the back of the window to the front of the pop-out is 8". Commissioner Van Vliet asked if it would have 2 x 4 trim, stucco and putting the windows to the back side of the wall. Mr. Valentino confirmed this. Mr. Bagato stated that the stairway does not have to be enclosed. Mr. Valentino commented that he had to enclose it because of the fire code. Mr. Bagato stated that he understood that as long as it wasn't back against another building he would not have to enclose the stairway. There is an alley at the back of this building. He stated that he checked with the Building & Safety Department and was told that they could have the open stairway because there is no building along the back wall. Commissioner Vuksic commented on how the openings for the windows look like they were stuck where they belong on the plan without any regard for how they work with other elements on the facade. He stated that a two-story commercial building should work together. Mr. Valentino stated that he did try to place the upper windows in some sort of order. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if he was required to have a third bin in the trash enclosure, or can he get by with two. Mr. Valentino stated that he received a letter from Waste Management which stated that he needed finro enclosures. Mr. Drell stated that there would be a general bin and a recycling bin. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that two bins will be filled up in a hurry since they have a warehouse. He also asked if there was a material change on the vertical elements, which are pop-outs with the openings in them. Mr. Valentino stated that there will be a color change and a heavier texture on the stucco. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there could be a material change on the vertical elements to make them stand out more, i.e. stone. Mr. Valentino suggested using color to make it stand out more. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�AR020312..min.wpo l� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would be better if he could use different materials. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when things line up, they seem to fall into place and work. Mr. Valentino stated that he does not feel the same way about window lines. Commissioner Vuksic asked if his design theory is to not make everything symmetrical. Mr. Valentino stated that he tried not to line up any doors or windows. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the stairway railings go right down to the deck level. He wanted to know why he was stepping it down there. Mr. Valentino stated that he stepped it down for architectural purposes. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the railing detail is. Mr. Valentino stated that it is a 3" round, turned down railing. Commissioner Van Vliet commented on the stair well enclosure on the right hand side, which is above the other vertical elements and wondered why he wouldn't keep it down low to match the other roof heights. Mr. Valentino stated that he tried to put blocks of vertical elements, similar to building blocks. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the vertical element on the right hand side should protrude above the roof structure like on the other end and then lower the stair well wall down. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it doesn't read like the other side. He also asked if there is a '/2" fry riglet on the building and suggested that '/2" is too small for a building of that size to get any value out of it. Mr. Valentino stated that he was looking for a subtle break and not for a real heavy grid. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that it looks like an expansion joint. Mr. Valentino stated that is what a '/2" ends up being. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested using a wider fry to get more out of it. Mr. Valentino stated that he did not want a wider fry and did not want it to stand out as a grid. Commissioner Lopez inquired about the wall shown on the plans and if it was screening for something. Mr. Valentino stated that the wall is a screen with landscape behind it. Commissioner Lopez commented on the palm trees, which are located in the left corner. He stated that he could see the palm trees growing up eventually and breaking up the lines, but they stop in that corner. He suggested adding a couple more palm trees in an asymmetrical pattern to break up the lines. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he has not seen any detail on the fountain or the gazebo. Mr. Valentino stated that he will bring in cut sheets on the gazebo. He commented that one of the items that the clients sell is a gazebo, therefore he would like to put one on display. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�AR020312..min.wpd 1 1 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a tree indicated on the landscape plan in the parking lot. Ms. Hollinger stated that there was a tree there originally, but it was behind the gazebo and there wasn't enough room for both so the tree was taken off the plans. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he does have a little bit of a problem with the way that the balcony goes up and down and that the windows are not aligned. He stated that visually it tends to be a little bit confusing, which he understands is intentional. Mr. Valentino stated that "intentional" would be the wrong word. He stated that knowing that it is like that would be more correct. He stated that he tends to let the window lines fall back as they tend to be just black anyway. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that they do not necessarily have to be symmetrical, but there seems to be a rhythm that is lacking. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they are not asking him to make things symmetrical or to line up things necessarily, but to have some order that they can see. He stated that Rick Holden once said that when something has a sense of order you end up with good surprises. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the air conditioning units are on the roof. Mr. Valentino stated that they are on the roof with a 6' parapet to screen the equipment. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that all of the equipment must be below the top of the parapet. Commissioner Gregory commented that he feels that the windows on the top floor are close enough to the ones on the bottom so that it looks disturbing. He suggested making them more randomly placed or more similar. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would like to see some depth without putting trim detail around every window and door. Commissioner Gregory asked if the windows could be set closer in to give more of a feeling of relief. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they are set in and he would prefer that they be left like that than add a trim detail around it. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to continue the request to allow the applicant to make the following changes. (1) Show window lines having some order, (2) achieve depth without putting trim around every window and door, and (3) inset windows. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�,4R020312..min.wpd 12 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: C 02-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS� CAMARGO COPELAND ARCHITECTS, LLP, 14755 Preston Road, Suite 845, Dallas, TX 75254 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of south elevation. Tweeters Car Stereos LOCATION: Palms to Pines Shopping Center; 72-885 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Drell suggested that the applicant think of something interesting to do under the arch on the back wall of the building, i.e. grid work or spandrel glass. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested using architectural wrought iron to give it some detail. Mr. Drell suggested that the Commission approve the door with the condition that the applicant come back with some enhancement to the back wall of the building. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to grant preliminary approval subject to enhancing south elevation east of proposed overhead door. Suggestions by the Commission include the use of wrought iron detail or spandrel glass. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO.: PP 01-07 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS�, THE FOUNTAINS, 2020 West Rudasill Road, Tuscon, AZ 85704 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised preliminary elevations for casitas and assisted living buildings. LOCATION: 41-505 Carlotta Drive ZONE: PR-10 Mr. Smith stated that the Commission received the plans in their packet for review. He commented that the major change is that the building has gone from two stories to one story, particularly for the assisted living building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he had a comment to apply to both the assisted living portion and the casitas, which was that you see these large buildings that look like they have 2 x 6 walls. He stated that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�Agmin1AR020312..min.wpd 13 . �wr+�" v�rr ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES the last time they discussed this it was suggested that they pick some spots to get some depth to make an impact on certain elements. He commented that he did not see that anywhere on the current set of plans. Commissioner Vuksic stated that every wall is a 2 x 6 wall with a window in it, even the ones that are protruding out. Todd Pratt, applicant, stated that the walls are 2 x 4. The Commission noted that 2 x 6 walls would likely be necessary to achieve the required insolation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the porch areas are fine, but there are some places that should be thicker in the areas where there are pop- outs. Mr. Pratt stated that there are header details that are wood. Commissioner Vuksic stated that when he looks at the plans he is looking at the wall, which looks like a 2 x 6 wall with a window on the outside. There are beautiful gabled Spanish elements with a flat- looking wall. Mr. Pratt stated that they did not use a 2 x 6 wall due to cost. Commissioner Vuksic suggested picking a few spots to thicken the walls. Mr. Drell asked if the applicant would meet the energy calcs with a 2 x 4 wall. He stated that he does not recall a single house built in the last ten years with 2 x 4 walls. Mr. Pratt stated that they may be 2 x 6, but he isn't sure. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if it was clear what the Commission is suggesting. Mr. Pratt stated that he urderstood. Commissioner Gregory suggested making all the walls 2 x 6 to provide human thermal comfort inside for the people who live here. He stated that aesthetically the whole project would be improved. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval subject to thickening walls to 2 x 6 at window areas to allow windows to be recessed. Motion carried 4-0-2-1 with Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR020312..min.wpd 14