Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-11 / � � 5 / � ` CITY OF PALM DESERT '- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . • MINUTES APRIL 11, 2006 **************************************************************************************************** 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 6 1 Kristi Hanson X 7 Chris Van Vliet X 6 1 John Vuksic X 7 Ray Lopez X 6 1 Karen Oppenheim X 7 Karel Lambel X 6 1 Also Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 14, 2006 & MARCH 28, 2006 Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to approve the minutes of March 14, 2006 and March 28, 2006. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES A. Final Drawinqs 1. CASE NO.: SA 06-47 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUN CREST CONSTRUCTION, 17775 Main Street, Suite B, Irvine, CA 92614 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised plans for monument sign for Paseo Vista. LOCATION: 116 Paseo Vista Circle ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Stendell stated that this proposal was before the commission at their last meeting. The applicant has returned with revised plans including a real rock substitute instead of the stone veneer. The lights have been moved outside the water and they will be using landscaping lights, per the commission's previous suggestion. Kelly Osier, applicant, was present and stated that he's planning to use real stacked stone for the monument sign. Commissioner Vuksic had a question about the letter size. Mr. Osier stated that the first letter of each word will be 2' in height and the lower case letters will be 1'6" in height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the drawing is out of scale. Mr. Osier stated that the letters are not drawn to scale. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the rest of the drawing is drawn to scale and the letters are shown at half the size of what it's really going to be. It was suggested that the applicant come back to staff with a scaled drawing that's acceptable. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to applicant returning with a drawing showing letter sizes drawn to scale, to be approved by staff. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: C 06-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARK GILES, KKE ARCHITECTS, 525 E. Colorado Blvd., 4th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min 2 '�, ,�;' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of business signage for Ashley Furniture. LOCATION: 34-750 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: PC Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: MISC 06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. & MRS. JODOIN, 73-242 Joshua Tree Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' roof height on a single-family residence. LOCATION: 73-242 Joshua Tree Street ZONE: R-3 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion, not including wall. Motion carried 7-0. 4. CASE NO.: PP 05-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHARD T. BOURESTON, 5500 Trabuco Road, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92620 RONALD SAKAHARA, 16842 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92606 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request final approval of a single-story office building. LOCATION: 44-651 Village Court ZONE: OP G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min 3 , � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 AGENDA Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. 5. CASE NO.: SA 06-68 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE RHODES, 2101 Carrillo Privado, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of one wall menu sign for Banco Popular on the Wal*Mart building. LOCATION: 34-500 Monterey Avenue; Gateway Shopping Center ZONE: PC Mr. Bagato stated that he had included the approved signs for Wal*Mart in the commissioner's packets. Three menu item signs had been approved along with other signage for the building. The code only allows two menu items, but three were approved for Wal*Mart and the current proposal is for an additional menu item sign. Part of Banco Popular's agreement with Wal*Mart was that they would be given a sign outside the building. They need an exception because our code only allows two menu items and this would be the fourth menu sign. The previously approved menu items are all using red letters and the current proposal is for blue letters. The location looks like it's in the wrong area. If we are to consider a fourth menu sign, it should be lower. Commissioner Hanson asked if the applicant is willing to lose anything to get that sign. The commission has already approved one additional sign over what we would normally approve with "Optical, Pharmacy, and One Hour Photo". What part of that don't you want to have there in order to add "Banco Popular"? Joe Rhodes, applicant, was present and stated that he's only representing Banco Popular and not Wal*Mart. Commissioner Hanson stated that it looks like a plethora of verbage on these buildings. Everybody knows what's in Wal*Mart. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that people know that they have a one- hour photo inside the store. Commissioner Hanson commented that all G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min 4 ��rr' `''�'`" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 AGENDA Wal*Marts have a pharmacy. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission review the proposed signage for Banco Popular and then, if they so chose, they can approve the bank signage subject to the elimination of one of the other menu items. Then it would be up to the applicant to get Wal*Mart to delete one menu item. Commissioner Gregory suggested lowering the bank sign to the height of where the current "Optical" location is. Commissioner Hanson agreed and suggested that all the menu items should be lined up on the left. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that all the signs should be the same color when they're stacked on top of each other. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the sign, standing on its own, is a nice sign. However, the applicant is going to have to talk to Wal*Mart and come back with an elevation that actually shows it in context with the other signs in color for the commission to be able to make a decision. Mr. Rhodes stated that the direction that he received from Wal*Mart was to place the sign in the proposed location. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that one of the menu item signs has to be removed. Optical and Pharmacy are pretty generic. Commissioner Gregory suggested that Optical and Pharmacy could be put together on one line with a slash between them so that it appears to be one item. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he likes the styling of the letters for the bank sign, but the other menu items aren't using a very interesting font and he suggested that the applicant pass that on to Wal*Mart. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show (1) a maximum of three lines of text for the menu signs, and (2) align text so that it lines up on the left. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: TT 31071 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RILINGTON COMMUNITIES, 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 303, San Marcos, CA 92069 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min 5 , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 AGENDA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior color change for a 159-1ot single family subdivision. Dolce LOCATION: Gerald Ford Drive and Gateway Drive ZONE: PR-5 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: TT 30438 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of elevations for Arroyo Base models 1 & 2 and the Southridge model home at Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-099 Highway 74 ZONE: HPR Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 8. CASE NO.: SA 06-56 APPLICANT L ND ADDRESS): CALIFORNIA NEON PRODUCTS, 4530 Mission Gorge Place, San Diego, CA 92120 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised monument sign for Jack-in-the-Box. LOCATION: Cook Street and Gerald Ford Dr. ZONE: C-1 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R060411.min 6 . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 AGENDA Mr. Smith stated that this is a re-submittal and the applicant has returned with revised plans. Commissioner Hanson questioned the sign company's argument about the idea of canting the sign to one side not working because it's two sided and wondered why it doesn't work because the letters are straight. Jennifer Jarrett, representative for California Neon Products, was present and stated that if the cabinet is angled, the letters are going to be angled the opposite way on the back side. Commissioner Hanson commented that the letters are straight. The original sign shows letters at an angle so if you twist it, they'll be straight on the other side. Ms. Jarrett stated that the cabinet will be shifted over and they're not going to match up on the back. Commissioner Hanson commented that she could make the sign two sided. Ms. Jarrett stated that if the cabinet is angled, then it's going to be angled the opposite way on the other side. Commissioner Hanson drew a diagram to show the applicant what she was asking. Ms. Jarrett stated that the sign has to be tilted the other way. It has to be uniform. The wall signs all tilt one way. Commissioner Gregory suggested tilting the sign exactly 45°. Commissioner Hanson stated that if they can't tilt the sign, then they have to come up with another design. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they could do something to incorporate the building architecture with the monument sign. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's still questioning the argument that the applicant is making. Why does the sign have to be tilted one way? Ms. Jarrett stated that Jack-in-the-Box only turns it one way. Commissioner Hanson stated that they don't because they have it turned one way on the wall sign and then straight on another wall sign. Ms. Jarrett stated that Commissioner Hanson has asked her to turn the sign the opposite way and Jack-in-the-Box won't allow it. Commissioner Gregory stated that if it were turned 45° it would be a mute point. There is an opportunity here to do something really clever. He suggested possibly making the background for the monument larger than the sign itself, but do it in a clever way without having a capping material so that the edges from the sign don't protrude from the monument background. It would give the sign company a chance to try to do something without going to a generic capped formula. Do something with the monument so that it looks appropriate with the building architecture and then they can turn the sign all they want by not G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin�P,R060411.min � � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES protruding beyond the edge of the base, it won't create conflict. Commissioner Hanson stated that they're not going to be able to move forward until they come up with a design that works and looks good. Come up with something more dynamic and appropriate to the building architecture. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they may have to down-size the monument substantially to get it to work. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the sign company meet with the architect of the building and have them lay out a monument for them with the signage. Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with revised plans that show a more creative dynamic design that integrates the monument sign with the architecture of the building. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: MICHAEL HURSTi 78-080 Calle Estado # 203, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised elevations for exterior remodel of a commercial building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-280 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval by minute motion, not including signage. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min g . � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): W A R E M A L C O M B , A n d r e w Zertuche) 10 Edelman, Irvine, CA 92618 PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, (John Salman or Gary Levinski) 3636 Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of construction of seven industrial buildings totaling 143,942 square feet (9.6 acres.) LOCATION: 73-555 Leilani Way, South of Dinah Shore Dr. and Gateway (APN 653-250-036) ZONE: S-1 Mr. Smith stated that the proposed project will be located on Leilani Way, which may possibly be re-named Dinah Shore Court in the future. There were issues relative to grading, which have now been addressed and they do have some impact on the architecture. Andrew Zertuche, architect, was present to explain the changes to the commission. The grading plan has been revised. In most of the buildings they don't have a step condition because the pads are even. There are a couple of buildings that have been stepped. Buildings C and F have steps. The exterior down-spouts have been removed. There are pop-outs over each window and there will be a 3' panel pop- out at every entry. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there were any pop-outs on the south elevation. Mr. Zertuche stated that there are no pop-outs in this area. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the wainscot. Mr. Zertuche stated that it's going to be the same texture, but it will be painted a different color. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he's getting frustrated because he knows that the applicant knows what to do. Mr. Zertuche stated that the walls in question are all interior walls and are not facing any street. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the adjacent project could see their wall. John Salman, representative for Pacific Pointe Partners, was present and stated that the adjacent property will not be able to see his wall. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min 9 � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES There's an 8' tall wall in between the 30' tall back of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they'll be able to see the building above 8'. Mr. Salman stated that the only place that they'll be able to see the wall from is their loading areas. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the roof plan still shows exterior roof drains. Mr. Zertuche stated that the roof plan is from the original submittal and isn't a current plan. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof plans show most of them being exposed, but some of them are located inside so these plans have been changed. Mr. Zertuche commented that those are the original roof plans and they did have some interior roof drains flowing to the front of the building. They're now all located inside. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the floor plans show a lot of flat walls with windows in them without recesses. Mr. Zertuche stated that the floor plans have been updated. There is a 3" reveal around the windows. Commissioner Hanson stated that the purpose of popping out elements should give relief to the glass-line, because the plans are showing that the glass has been popped out along with the element so the glass-line is basically in the same line as the 3" piece in the back. Mr. Zertuche stated that the glazing is rear mounted so that it's mounted to the inside of the face of the panel and will provide about 5" of reveal. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the buildings looked really flat. Mr. Salman stated that they were going to treat all the window elements and add pop-outs or plant-ons to the windows to give them some depth. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that when they popped those areas out, they popped the windows out with them. That's what the plans are showing. The purpose of popping elements out is so that the window sets back in and you get a shadow line and you've essentially eliminated that. That's what makes it look flat. Commissioner Vuksic stated that these buildings look like the one that was over the height limit and the City Council told him to chop the top off. The architecture needs more work. Mr. Salman stated that the challenge that they have is that they tried to incorporate the same type of entry features as their last project, which was all office. The proposed project is industrial, which is a different product. We can't have a lot of window lines in warehouses due to safety reasons. We've tried to hide all the loading areas and have them either face each other or face the park in the back. From any view from Leilani, Dinah Shore or Gateway, we're trying to give that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�P,R060411.min 1� '�rr✓ '�► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES same type of feature that's on the front, but we're dealing with some walls that are warehouse interior walls. Commissioner Hanson stated that they popped the windows out so the face of the building is flat, as opposed to popping out the windows and recessing the windows so you get a shadow line. You would have 3' of shadow line, as opposed to 5". That's what makes the difference. Commissioner Vuksic commented that there's very little breaking the parapet line. There's something coming up one foot but you have to find out what's acceptable. You also have to return the parapets. You returned them a little bit, but you need to return them a lot more because you're going to be able to see the end of it if you're a distance away from the building and it's going to look bad. The parapet should be returned two-thirds of the width of the front element. Mr. Smith stated that it's going to be particularly necessary on buildings D and F that face Gateway because that's all you're going to see when you're on Gateway is the top 4'-5' of the building. Commissioner Gregory asked if the buildings are going to exceed the height limit. Mr. Salman stated that they're at their maximum height. We wanted to go up to 34'6" in height. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission would like to see something a little higher. Tom Noble was present and stated that that would take this project to a whole different level of approval. Then it'll have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. To me, that would be very unwise. I don't think it's a fair thing for this commission to ask of us. Commissioner Gregory stated that he's perceiving some discomfort on the part of the commission in approving this project. Mr. Noble stated that for the commission to tell an applicant to re-do something that doesn't meet the City standards wouldn't be fair to the applicant. Commissioner Gregory commented that he was just suggesting it only because the relationship between the elements on the parapet that pop-up aren't that different from the rest of the roof. Obviously, you're going for a two-story building which makes the roof-line very high so the elements which are breaking that line are very minimal. It's something that you're creating and the commission is responding to what we're seeing. I'm not telling you that you should exceed the City standards, but I'm just bringing up the possibility because it has been done before. Mr. Noble stated that he would agree with him had it not been for his prior experience at the City Council meeting where the Council forced the applicant to chop the top of his building off to meet the height limit. Mr. Salman stated that originally they had drawn the buildings at 34'6" and they were at the same meeting as the Venture group and they had a secondary drawing handy. When the Council was ready to deny their G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgminWR060411.min 11 , `r'�` "'�r` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES project, they pulled out their secondary plan and the Council approved it. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Smith if the Council has opened themselves up again to the possibility of having taller elements to make these buildings more interesting or are they sticking true to their previous action. Mr. Smith commented that they did approve the Summit's Falling Waters project at 34'6" in height, which is immediately south of this site. It is residential and part of the argument was that it's grossly overshadowed by Wal*Mart/Sam's Club to the west. Commissioner Gregory agreed with Mr. Noble in saying that there's no reason for the commission to get the applicant in trouble by sending him on to the Planning Commission and City Council. I feel like we're being dupes right now with respect to our role advising Council. You want a project approved and we're dumbing things down just because Council can't make up their minds. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what height the applicant needs for a two-story building, minus the parapet. Mr. Zertuche stated that they need 24'6" to the top of the roof at the mezzanine. Then they have a 29' parapet which is just enough to screen roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Van Vliet asked him what their ceiling heights will be inside. Mr. Zertuche stated that they'll be 9' in height. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that Commissioner Gregory made a good point in that if they could pop it up a little bit it would certainly make the buildings look better. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the Venture group had a secondary plan showing how the building was lowered, could you do the same thing showing the pop-outs higher? Mr. Noble stated that the trouble is that we would still have to go to Council and Planning Commission. I just don't think it's wise to go to the City Council. The buildings are largely warehouse space and i feel that they look good. I really like the look of the covers over the entryways. It's a very nice look and the blank walls are facing either the backs of other buildings or each other where they're not going to be seen outside that area. I think that the issues that the commission had previously brought up have been addressed with the exception of returning the parapets. Commissioner Vuksic stated that so far the only elevation I've reviewed is the one that faces Leilani Court. ThaYs all I've really talked about. You can't say that no one is going to see that. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the applicant look at the building at the corner of Fred Waring and Washington on the left-hand side so they can see how flat this building is going to be. Everything is so flat and that's exactly what this is going to look like. You don't have G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060411.min 12 "wrw` `"rrr►' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES enough reveal. You don't have the windows set far enough back so that you're actually going to get a shadow line there. Mr. Salman stated that they can build an interior structure that sets the entry doors back and the glass line. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this would allow them to do something with the walls between the windows so that it's not all flat. Now you could get some layering there. The wainscot needs to have some dimension to it as well. This would be an opportunity to add another layer and you need that. I'm not concerned about it where nobody is going to see it. There are lots of building edges that people are going to see from Leilani Court and that people are going to see from the public side of these buildings. Mr. Zertuche came up with an idea that would return the parapets in two-thirds of the width of the panel and then create a taller parapet around the office area to screen all the mechanical units within this area. This would allow them to drop the parapet elsewhere. Commissioner Vuksic stated that that sounds great but added that he should close the parapet because you might be able to see the back side of it. Mr. Zertuche agreed that he could box it in. Ms. Hollinger stated that she had an issue with the landscaping on the west side. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for preliminary approval subject to (1) pop-outs must have recessed windows with 3' inset, (2) close parapets to create tower feature and screen roof-mounted equipment, (3) thicken smaller pop- outs, (4) wainscot needs dimension, needs another layer, and (5) subject to approval by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP/HPR 06-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KRISTI HANSON ARCHITECTS, 72- 185 Painter's Path, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of a single-family home in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. LOCATION: 865 Rock River Drive, The Canyons at Bighorn ZONE: HPR G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060411.min 13 , , '�rw �r� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Stendell stated that the proposed home is in the Hillside Planned Residential zone. The architecture achieves the intent of the hillside zone in texture and color. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it looks very nice. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambell for preliminary approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 4. CASE NO.: PP 03-11, Amendment#1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, JOHN VUKSIC, 44-530 San Pablo, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 THE EVANS COMPANY, RICK EVANS, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a 4,280 square foot retail building with a drive-through restaurant. LOCATION: 37-825 Cook Street ZONE: PCD/FCOZ Mr. Smith that this is a new building with a drive-through coffee shop and will be located near the signal at Berger and Cook Street. This is the first step for the applicant towards adding a drive through to the commercial center on the west side of Cook Street between Gerald Ford and Berger. The architect was told that perspectives were needed to see what it's going to look like from north and east on Cook Street because Planning Commission will require them. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he liked it and it looks great. Commissioner Lambell stated that she loves the name "Bad Ass Coffee". Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the location of the neon. John Vuksic, architect, stated that the building has two options for the neon locations. One option would be to have a light tucked up under the eave that would shine down across the reveals for shadow. The other option would be to put a neon light inside each of the channels so you'd have different colors of neon on three levels. They would not go completely around the building. The top one might go to the edge, the next line of neon might stop a little bit short and the next one a little G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�AgminWR060411.min 14 , , , , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 11, 2006 MINUTES shorter. They would not wrap around the corners. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he thought that it would look great. Mr. Vuksic stated that the neon is intended to add some architectural detail to the building. It's not signage. Commissioner Hanson asked if the trellis elements were intended to be architectural or will they provide shade. Mr. Vuksic stated that they'll provide shade, but another function is to add some layering in the architecture. They're on the east, west and north sides of the building. Commissioner Hanson suggested slanting the slats so that they would provide shade, as opposed to leaving them straight. Mr. Vuksic commented that they're going to put them closer together because he didn't like the way it looked if they were slanted. Commissioner Lopez asked about the location of the air conditioning units. Mr. Vuksic stated that there's an element that comes up past the roof plane that houses the A/C units. Mr. Vuksic stated that he wanted to mention something thaYs very interesting in regards to his client. They've been submitting buildings for that site without any color. The reason is because he says that he's not ready to pick colors. He's not going to pick colors until the buildings are up and they can try different colors on the walls that are appropriate. It's hard to make attractive drawings that are just in black and white. Color would add another layer of interest. I'm not worried about it because he's a sophisticated client who doesn't want to pick colors yet because he's just not ready. Commissioners Van Vliet and Lambell stated that it's a great building. Commissioner Gregory stated that the City will still be involved with the approval of the final colors so it's okay. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:43 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs�P,gmin�,4R060411.min 1$