Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-12 MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION September 12, 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 14 2 Kristi Hanson X 15 1 Chris Van Vliet X 14 2 John Vuksic X 16 Ray Lopez X 13 3 Karen Oppenheim X 16 Karel Lambell X 15 1 Also Present Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 25, 2006 & August 22, 2006 Commissioner Van Wet noted changes to both sets of minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, approving the July 25, 2006 and August 22, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: V. CASES: MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO: MISC 06-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT SPRINGS MARRIOTT RESORT AND SPA, 74-855 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 8,000 square foot spa addition. LOCATION: 74-855 Country Club ZONE: P This item was approved at the ARC meeting on August 22, 2006 and no further action was necessary. 2. CASE NO: SA 06-118 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EDGAR MUNOZ/MF SIGN FACTORY, 1495 West 9 Street#305, Upland, CA 91786. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of business signage for Super White Cleaners. LOCATION: 73-221 Highway 111 Unit A ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendall presented business signage for Super White Cleaners. The sign complies with size limits, but it seemed to be plain and red. The color of the building is off-white and dark brown. The sign has channel letters and "Super White" would be a small can sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if this was indicative of other signage in that area or are they reverse channel halo lit. Mr. Stendall indicated that as a policy the City prefers reverse, but it is not a requirement. There are other red channel lit letters along Highway 111, however most of them came to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Van Vliet preferred the reverse channel halo lit. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 2 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 Commissioner Vuksic indicated that "Super White" looks like a postage stamp and is hardly seen. If this is what the sign will look like, it shouldn't light up bright red through the face. He asked the applicant if he would prefer to look at a more stylized sign so that it would be lit more directly through the face or were they happy with the reverse channel letters. Edgar Munoz representative for MF Sign Factory, indicated that most of the letters didn't light up. Commissioner Vuksic once again stated that the sign should be more stylized. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the sign should be more distinguished. It's the "Super White" that makes this business different from another business and it should be an integral part of the logo. Mr. Munoz indicated that the owner wanted "Cleaners" and if "Super White" is not approved then "Super White" will be removed. Commissioner Hansen suggested that instead of slanting the letters, straighten them up and follow the curve of the building. They could do "Super White" curved and if they don't care about that lighting up, they can just make that in foam letters that attach. Commissioner Vuksic stated not to use letters that are as thick for the word "Cleaners". Mr. Munoz indicated that they could use two (2) to five (5) inch foam letters. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the applicant would prefer to re-design the sign. Mr. Munoz indicated that he would. Mr. Smith suggested approving the signage subject to the modifications and that the final approval be handled at staff level. If the modifications are not acceptable, it would then return to the Commission for further review. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval, subject to the modifications recommended. Motion carried 5- 0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min,DOC Page 3 of 16 Mr" MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 3. CASE NO: SA 06-120 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JIM MARQUEZ GRUMPY OLD MEN, LLC, 1218 El Prado Avenue#128, Torrance, CA 90581 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of signage for CVS Pharmacy. LOCATION: 42-155 Washington ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Stendall presented business signage for CVS Pharmacy. Staff received a site plan indicating that they are taking over the old Sav-on center, which has 110 feet of frontage, allowing them 80 square feet of signage. The proposal far exceeds the maximum allowed signage. They need to get everything into an 80 square foot area and be limited to two (2) menu items. The monument signage also looked crowded. Jim Marquez, Grumpy Old Men, LLC, representative for CVS Pharmacy indicated that the clients have their own in-house architects who are working on a national program with national decision-making policies. Commissioner Hansen stated that on the freestanding sign the way they left Sav-on with space on either side, you would have to do the same thing with "Pharmacy" and "24 Hours". Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the original signage obviously works with the building, and that it does something architecturally to the building, rather than dominating it. Mr. Marquez indicated that on the freestanding sign the words "Pharmacy" and "24 Hours" would be brought to scale and spaced correctly. They will be sending a matrix that shows the signs, the area and the sizing so that he can create the scale that the Commission is requesting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue, to allow modifications per Commission discussion. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. G:\Planning\Janineludy\WordFiles\ARCMinutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 4 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 4. CASE NO: C 06-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SCANLAN KEMPER BARD COMPANIES, 1211 SW 5 Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of small store front facades for the Plaza de Monterey Shopping Center. LOCATION: 73-101 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC-2 Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO: SA 06-103 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Image National Inc., David Cobb, 444 E. Amity Road, Boise, ID 83716 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of Bristol Farms main identification sign and five (5) secondary signs, remodeling existing monument signs and addition of two new monument signs. LOCATION: 73-101 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC-2 Mr. Bagato indicated that the wall signage had been revised as requested by Commission at the last meeting. New designs with photo simulations and other modifications were provided and discussion ensued regarding the monument signage. Mr. Bagato stated that Sign A was one of the big topics because of the rock and that Mr. Drell, Director of Community Development had issues with the proposed sign in this location because it blends in with the back of the gas station and more of the gas station will be exposed due to the new sign. Mr. Drell GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912Jnin.DOC Page 5 Of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 has indicated that he is not in favor of this design because it is surrounded by the gas station more than the actual storefront of the building, however the sign looks industrial and would help to screen the gas station. Mr. Bagato stated that because the new sign with the arches will expose more of the gas station maybe this sign could be a little taller than the existing sign; even though it's already very tall. Commissioner Van Wet stated that he didn't think the sign hides that much of the gas station and it shouldn't be raised since it was already 9 foot 6 inches. Commissioner Vuksic stated that raising the sign would help since the gas station is so non-descript. The sign will catch the eye more and the consumer will tend to stop there and won't be looking at the building behind it as much. Mr. Bagato stated that other changes were made to signs, B, C and D where the rock steps out further to create more of a base. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he had concerns regarding Sign B whether that needed to be that tall or could it be reduced in size. Joe Rosa, representative for Image National, Inc., stated that the base could be reduced to whatever height the Commission requires. Commissioner Hansen stated that if they cut the base in half, it would match what is shown on the photo simulation, as opposed to the actual elevation. She suggested reducing the base height of Sign B by two (2) to two and a half (2'/2) feet. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval, subject to reducing the base height of Sign B by two (2) to two and a half (2'/2) feet. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutcs\AR060912.min.DOC Page 6 of 16 MINUTES *4WO *#me ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 6. CASE NO: TT 33935 & TT 34391 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TOLL BROTHERS, INC., 73-121 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised elevations of eight (8) single-family model types. LOCATION: Kingston Court and Imperial Court located east and west of Shepherd Lane. ZONE: PR-5 Stone James, Land Acquisitions Managers for Toll Brothers, Inc., stated that they have reduced some of the roof heights as much as 12 percent, and reduced the percentages on parts of the roof over the 18-foot limit. The plate heights have been lowered, architectural detail has been increased on the front and rear by way of stone access, and added additional wrought iron and recessed windows. One (1) of the tallest plans have been eliminated and replaced with two (2) plans that are not only shorter, but also have more architectural design on the front and the rear. Joe Lisiewski, Regional Architect and Structural Design Manager for Toll Brothers, Inc., presented a demonstration of eight (8) single-family models that were being proposed. He demonstrated entryways, wrought iron details, shutters, brick and stone accents, accents on various elements of the front elevations and typical light fixtures in the flavor of Palm Desert. Darker and brighter colors had been chosen. The entry elements are bold and grand and accented with color and wrought iron. They added stone detailing, appropriate fixtures, garage doors, and shutters where applicable and a true recessed window. The Commission at the June 27t" meeting was concerned about the 21- foot height. He showed Commission a series of line of sight drawings, which confirmed that their plans would have less impact than an 18-foot tall building at the minimum setback. The Piedra was the worst-case model; a house with the tallest roof and 94 feet deep. The Piedra's line of sight, when viewed from the neighboring lot, is 24 feet 5 inches above finished grade. A 15-foot high G:TlanningVanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR000912.min.DOC Page 7 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 unit at minimum setback would be 33 feet 11 inches above finished grade and an 18-foot high unit at the setback would be up around 42 feet 3 inches. All elevations had hip roofs so gables would not be encountered on the side elevations; minimizing visual impact of sight lines. The homes could be easily flipped to make it a left-hand verses a right-hand on the side and provide a window wall. At the last meeting, the Santina was discussed regarding the slope and height and it was decided that it wouldn't work, so it was substituted with the Arroyo model. Mr. Lisiewski then discussed the changes for the eight (8) single-family models. The Arroyo has a courtyard entry and tower element. The element that exceeds the height limit is more towards the center of the house. It is a focal point on the interior to help with the architectural and articulation of the home. This is more exemplary of our front elevation with massing with several hip roofs. All the hips that are garages and front elevations dropped to an eight (8) foot plate height, again reducing the impact of the line of sight. The Cantabria was revised with additional light fixtures, decoration at the top, stone at the columns in the rear to help accent various portions of the architecture, with an outdoor living space and covered porch. The Sevilla was revised with additional outdoor living spaces, which are defined by roof overhangs and stone. Wrought iron detail was added at the front entry. The Savino had an exterior room framed by two gables and the front entry tower was stoned and recessed and off front of house entry. The Piedra was the model with the greatest mass above the 18-foot height limit. The hip is pretty well centralized in the house. The Quintana detailing was changed to give the columns a grander sense of the entry. The McCoy was a new model and not presented at the last meeting. The portions that exceed the height limit were two hip peaks at the tower on the main roof. The Nolina had multiple facets in the front elevation with curved surfaces and outdoor living spaces, covered porches and patios. Mr. Lisiewski stated that what they were trying to demonstrate at this meeting was that they were in compliance with the line of sight height restrictions with the product selected and offered. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\P.RC Minutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 8 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 Commissioner Van Wet asked if there were neighbors present who would like to comment. Mr. Smith indicated there were none, however a letter from several neighbors was received and distributed to the Commission for review. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that the overall architecture and massing of the homes have been sensitive and done with care. He stated that at this time he would like to comment on architectural details. They went to the trouble of the wainscot details and yet they are floating above the ground. Reviewing the plans, the wainscot appeared to have shadow lines below them, which gives them away as being false. He suggested that the stone and brick details go down to the ground. On the side elevation, they wrap around the side of the house with those details and they go back about two (2) feet and then stop. It becomes sort of a false front. They need to take them back to a logical stopping point. On a few of the side yards there are windows that appear to have trim around them. He asked if these windows were recessed or pop-outs because the shadow lines indicate that they are pop-outs. Mr. Lisiewski stated that the windows were recessed and not pop-outs. It was shown as a four (4) inch, but a six (6) inch wall is used here in the desert. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if it was their intent to have a 2 x 4 trim around the wall, then they should recess the window. Mr. Lisiewski indicated that recessed windows where a standard for the Palm Springs division. They will be recessed two (2) inches with a 2 x 4 nailer. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could go with a 2 x 3 nailer. Mr. Lisiewski responded that it would be possible. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the rear columns on some of the homes appear to be 18 x 18, and look spindly. Mr. Lisiewski indicated that a number of the columns were increased since the last meeting from 12 x 12 to 24 x 24. Commissioner Vuksic asked that all columns be increased to 24 x 24. Commissioner Hansen stated that the garage on the Arroyo should be recessed about 12 inches. The window in the office optional bedroom pop-out should be recessed further than just three (3) inches. In a lot of cases you should sight those houses on the lots to break up the eve line,and make the chimneys an element to break up the roofline. The Cantabria is a cool design, but you need to think indoor/outdoor. There is no access directly out of that living room to the outdoor patio, which is a mistake. The header element seems to want to be taller as opposed GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.r in.DOC Page 9 of 16 1%W' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 to being so thin. You have stone and you should take it back, making sure it stops at the wall and not before it. On your plan view you show the columns on the covered patio, but in the elevation it doesn't represent that way. Make sure you screen your chimney caps. The columns on the Peadria are thin and long, you need to look at the architecture to make that work. The rear elevation for the Santa Barbara, use the same detail as the other homes. The office on the McCoy should not be the first thing you see when you walk in the front door. Commissioner Lambell stated that the height was somewhere between 2 feet 2 inches to 3 feet 8 inches over the 18 foot restriction, which is quite substantial. Although the massing is better, she hoped that they had a Plan B in place if someone requires that it stay at 18 feet. She asked them to share their thoughts. Mr. James stated that in order to have a back-up plan, it would really require a lot more market and financial analysis. Feedback received from Transwest Housing, have indicated that they have built or in the process of finishing the Terracina project in the desert, and have received penalties for their products and presentation; whether they be anywhere from a two car garage or consistent plate heights. It has been over a year and they have just finally sold the 16t" house. Commissioner Lambell asked if what they were saying was that they have suffered from the lower heights. Mr. James stated it was a combination of several things. The projects that have suffered are the ones that have not put their best foot forward on architectural design. He stated that not only do they want to do something good for the community they want a good project here in the desert. Commissioner Lambell agreed and stated that the City wants the best project that Toll Brothers was able to give; however, the Commission would like to know that you have tried to work within the consistent guidelines which is 18- feet and should that change, certainly you are welcome to do 23-feet. Until that happens, I would urge you to have a backup Plan B. You have received feedback from the people on Academy Lane and they are not fans. We want to try and mitigate that as much as possible. Mr. James stated that the people on Academy Lane have requested Toll Brothers to lower both tracks by two (2) feet. Commissioner Lambell asked what their feelings were regarding lowering the whole thing two (2) feet. He stated that they could attempt to approach the current sellers, G.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 10 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 but the cost that would incur on the current sellers would be tremendous. As far as the drainages, there was a lot of undulation on this sight already and it was the engineers that brought that down to levels of only two (2) feet. It's neutral on some of these other homes and would be difficult and unique to manage, especially since we have to retain all the water on site; and it all has to be retained down in the center, since we have all those storm drains going in. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it wouldn't be possible to do, but you could lower the height of the homes. It would be equivalent of lowering the pad heights by two (2) feet. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist asked if the landscape plans have been developed and indicated that they currently have off-site approval. Mr. James indicated that they have not completed the plans as of yet, but it was in the process. Transwest will be installing all the common area landscaping and Toll Brothers will be landscaping the models. Mr. Smith recommended that their landscape architect contact Ms. Hollinger. Commissioner Vuksic asked how high were the high plate lines. Mr. James indicated that in the impact area they were 12 feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that was reasonable. When talking about height, you say that the house is three (3) feet above the height limit but that's only at one point. Mr. Lisiewski stated that the percentage of roof area that is above three (3) feet averages six (6) percent. Four (4) or five (5) out of the eight (8) homes is the thickness of a roof shingle; the other hip roofs are the size of a conference table. Commissioner Hanson suggested that they may want to consider, for future projects, a photo simulation from the back of the worse case scenario lot. Mr. Lisiewski stated that they would document that and present it for future projects. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he still had concerns regarding the height. He didn't buy their logic that they had to go that high to be marketable in the City of Palm Desert. They could have worked more within the guidelines and still be within the massing to achieve their end goal. He didn't have a problem with a little bit of overage, but it was consistently over on everything. He stated that the architecture on the side and rear elevations was lacking. There is beautiful architecture on the front, but they ignored the sides and now they have indicated that they will be recessing the windows, which didn't show on the plans. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min,DOC Page 11 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 Mr. James stated they were not just trying to produce a project that will compete only amongst the other projects in Palm Desert. Ultimately they need this project to stand out and deliver a punch and that is why they are looking to achieve the 10-foot impact areas. At the last meeting, Mr. Drell mentioned scissors trusses, which would make life a lot more challenging, as far as getting the air conditioning and furnace up there. Then in order to account for the additional massing to structurally support it, you would have to increase the sidewalls. Commissioner Van Vliet recommended getting the furnaces on the ground so they could have outside access to them. Commissioner Vuksic asked why the roofs couldn't be 3'/2 to 12 pitch instead of 4 to 12 pitch. Mr. Lisiewski answered that the insurance industry does not warranty Toll Brothers for a 3'/2 to 12 pitch roof in 42 states. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they had a roof tile or shingle that had a recommended minimum slope. Mr. James indicated that they could not get it and have had discussions regarding this for heights higher than 12. Toll Brothers have tracked warranty's that have come back and when they take a roof lower than 4 to 12, they receive calls regarding leaky roofs because the water is not moving off fast enough. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they have been sensitive with the height envelope and referred to the worse example. He indicated that the hatched area on the Cantabria plan, an area above 18 feet and equivalent of a few square feet, is actually at the maximum and the rest is tapering down to the 18-foot limit and is right in the middle of the house. Commissioner Van Vliet asked him if the architecture on these models were sufficient enough to overcome the height problem. Commissioner Vuksic stated that with the comments that the Commission has made, he felt that it was ok. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he hoped they weren't opening a Pandora's box where everyone will come up with the same logic to get overage on every house. Commissioner Vuksic stated that height limits need to follow guidelines, but if it can be shown that the architecture is being sensitive to the height, than there needs to be an allowance for some play in that height. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to grant preliminary approval, subject to comments made being incorporated into the working drawings. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. GAPImningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minu[es\AR0609I2.min.DOC Page 12 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: PP 06-11 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO E ARCHITECTS FOR WORLD SAVINGS BANK, 2411 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture for new commercial building. LOCATION: 73-051 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 The applicant was not present. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant a continuance to allow applicant to be present. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO: PP 06-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of three (3) residential units on Lot 8 at Stone Eagle. LOCATION: 48-280, 48-294 & 48-308 Northridge Trail ZONE: H.P.R. Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 13 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 3. CASE NO: MISC 06-31 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID A. LEVY & ASSOC., 345 Springside Drive, Akron, OH 44333 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of fagade enhancement for White House/Black Market. LOCATION: 73-199 El Paseo Drive Suites E, F & G ZONE: C-1 Commission reviewed the request and found it to be acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim, by minute motion to grant approval; subject to roof element extending back 2/3 of the width of the element. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO: MISC 06-32 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID A. LEVY & ASSOC., 345 Springside Drive, Akron, OH 44333 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of storefront enhancement for Chico's & Soma at El Paseo Collection North. LOCATION: 73-100 El Paseo Drive Unit 31 ZONE: C-1 David Fletcher, representative of Churchill Management and David Marcovitz, with David A. Levy & Associates, the architect for both the White House and Chico's projects presented a request of storefront enhancements. Mr. Fletcher stated that the current White House store would be moving across the street to the building where Coldwater Creek is located. They will be remodeling the White House/Black Market store into the Soma by GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 14 of 16 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 2006 Chico's storefront and making some minor modifications on the back where the offices were. Commissioner Hansen asked what material they would be using on the Soma. Mr. Marcovitz indicated that it would be a stucco finish. Commissioner Hansen commented that on White House/Black Market wood was being suggested for the trim and asked them to rethink that. Mr. Marcovitz indicated that they would not be using wood. It's going to be stucco with the same aesthetic look and the same color. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous Items 1. CASE NO: N/A APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STARWOOD AT DESERT WILLOW NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Presentation of timeshare concepts for Desert Willow. LOCATION: Portola ZONE: PR-5 Steven Decker, presented a conceptual proposal for Starwood at Desert Willow, a 300-unit vacation ownership development, with a 40,000 square foot building for check-in, sales, restaurant with pool bar, main pool and slide, a recreational area, tennis courts, a guard gated guest entry, and underground public and employee parking. The buildings around the golf course use a serpentine layout with pool amenity areas. The three (3) to four (4) story buildings will be setback from the golf course to reduce impacts and bring the landscaping up to the units. Mr. Decker showed Commission the proposed building elevations. GAPlanningVanine Judy\Word Files\P.RC MinutesWR060912.min.DOC Page 15 of 16 MINUTES EPTEMBE 12 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW C MM SSI N Commission generally felt that the project was headed in the right direction. Commissioner Hansen suggested that they create a more artistic pattern for the railings to add a degree of detail, work on the golf course elevation to make it more symmetrical and incorporate additional detail on the entry elevation. Action: o action taken. VI. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and Lopez absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. STE E SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\AR060912.min.DOC Page 16 of 16