Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-28 i t �►--���� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 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 12 4 Kristi Hanson X 14 2 Chris Van Vliet X 16 John Vuksic X 16 Ray Lopez X 13 3 Karel Lambell X 11 5 Nancy DeLuna X 6 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 14, 2007 Action: Minutes for the August 14, 2007 meeting were not complete and will be approved at the next meeting on September 11, 2007. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: t vftle ARCHITECTURAL REEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC L. KLEINER, ARCHITECT, 1620 '/2 W. Lewis, San Diego, CA 92103 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an 18 foot roof height. LOCATION: 74-671 Old Prospectors Trail ZONE: R-1 30,000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Wet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Van Wet abstaining. 2. CASE NO: MISC 07-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EUGENE AND BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-875 Park View Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a 6-foot block wall with 12 foot setback. LOCATION: 72-875 Park View Drive ZONE: R-1 Mr. Stendell presented revised plans for a six (6) foot high block wall with a 12-foot setback showing additional meanderings and landscaping. Mr. Eugene Vorwaller, applicant, stated that the wall was revised as suggested by the Commission at the last meeting. He was requesting a six (6) foot high wall to be used as a sound barrier on the Park View side. Included on the plans were meanderings of the wall along the Park View side, 15 feet from the curb. He also indicated that on San Juan, the wall would be stepped down from six (6) feet to five (5) feet six (6) inches to five (5) feet, 12 feet from GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070828.min.DOC Page 2 of 17 i ARCHITECTURAL REEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 the curb all the way around the house. The wall would have a rock decor outside and pilasters every 30 feet with smooth stucco to match the house. Commissioner Vuksic asked what setback the applicant was proposing. Mr. Vorwaller indicated that currently the fence is 12 feet from face of curb and he wanted to go to 12 feet from face of curb to face of pilaster and another six (6) or eight (8) inches back from that point to the wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there seemed to be about 60 feet of space in the back yard and he was trying to understand the justification for an exception in this case. He stated that the applicant could request a six (6) foot high wall, but why would the Commission approve it 12 feet from the curb? Mr. Vorwaller explained that he was trying to line it up with his neighbor's wall to avoid having a huge offset. In the past, a three (3) foot offset from his existing fence collected dirt and trash every time the wind blew. He was trying to keep it flat so that the nitch didn't collect junk and to also keep people from urinating in the corner. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he could take it from that point and meander it to increase the setback without creating any kind of a corner. Mr. Vorwaller stated that he wanted to keep the wall straight up to that point to keep people as far away from the house as possible. He indicated that he would be adding extra pilasters and rock to beautify the wall, but that he was also trying to bring the focus to the front of the house, not to the side of the house. Commissioner Del-una asked how wide the meander pattern was. Mr. Vorwaller stated that at one point it goes about 12 to 15 feet in and back out again. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could understand if the applicant provided some artistic value to the wall to enhance the aesthetic appearance of that corner with an average of something less than 20, but certainly not a 12-foot straight wall. Mr. Vorwaller stated that he didn't want anything different than what his neighbor has. Mr. Bagato stated that the code used to be 12 feet, but two (2) years ago the City Council decided not to have walls that close to the street, whether for a corner lot or a front yard. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 3 of 17 I 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Nr.r' MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Mr. Vorwaller said that on several occasions he spoke with staff and feels that he has done everything in accordance with their suggestions. Based on previous comments made by the Commission, he has placed the meanderings further back and dropped the wall height down at the corner and now would like to work something out. Commissioner Vuksic stated that one of his comments at the previous meeting was that if the applicant added some artistic value to the wall, and then the Commission could look at reducing the setback somewhat. Commissioner Hanson felt that if a person had a home on a corner lot it wasn't fair to lose a lot of space, but in this case she didn't see a compelling reason to give a variance when there was enough room on the property. The Commission and the applicant discussed meandering the wall and the size of the meanderings. Commissioner Hanson asked if there was more of a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the wall, wouldn't that create more of a .barrier than having a wall close to the sidewalk with a little landscape. Mr. Vorwaller stated that the plan called for low landscaping; small bushes that are maintained twice a year with a rock garden. He asked if he meandered the wall all the way to the corner could he keep the pilasters at 12 feet and the meander in at 15 feet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if there were enough artistic value to justify it, he would be willing to go with an average of 15 feet at six (6) feet high; an average, meaning some at 18 feet and some at 12 feet. Mr. Vorwaller asked for some direction from the Commission regarding artistic value. Commissioner Gregory stated that on Park View it could be a six (6) foot high meandering wall, 15 feet back from curb face and along San Juan a meandering wall of five (5) feet high, 15 feet average setback from the curb face. The corner must adhere to whatever the rule is with respect to the height that you want for the wall on the corner. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could have a wall at six (6) feet high with pilasters every 30 feet 20 feet back from the curb, but once you start getting closer the artistic value of the wall will increase. An average of 15 feet is a pretty nice variance. He also suggested breaking up the wall by playing with the height. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 4 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Commissioner Lopez suggested that the applicant's designer meet with staff and discuss options because the designer would have a better understanding of what was being requested and then submit the revised plans for review. He felt that the applicant would have a better outcome. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to continue Case No. MISC 07-24 to allow applicant to submit redesign with recommendations for additional meanderings and varying heights of wall on Parkview Drive. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 3. CASE NO: SA 07-134 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC CENTURY HOMES, Debbie Spikes, 40980 County Center Drive #110, Temecula, CA 92591 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage; Falling Waters. LOCATION: 34-744 Water Ridge Drive ZONE: PCD Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 4. CASE NO: SA 07-108 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EVA DIEK, 39227 Seraphina Road, Murrieta, CA 92563 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new business signage; Ashley Furniture. LOCATION: 34-770 Monterey Avenue ZONE: PC 3 Mr. Aaron Hodgdon, representative, stated that he was confused about why they still had to reduce the signage because they had a letter from the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) approving the original GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 5 of 17 NW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 submittal. Mr. Bagato stated that there was some confusion because he could not find any documentation in the file that it had been approved. Mr. Hodgdon stated that he had the original sign package for the entire center and the only difference between the two packages was that the square footage of the front sign was 125 square feet, and the sign in the original sign package was 100 square feet on the side and the rear elevation of the building. Through this new process it had been reduced to 62 square feet on the side and 34 square feet on the back. Mr. Bagato stated that the problem was that those plans were not stamped and he could not locate any approved signs in the file. When he actually scaled the original sign on the construction drawings before it was reduced, signs B and C were too big. The signs were reduced because they would be crammed in that area and wouldn't fit proportionately. Mr. Hodgdon stated that they changed the locations for those signs. Mr. Bagato stated that even though the signs were moved to a new location it would still be jammed between the cornice detail and the top of the element with only two (2) inches top and bottom. Mr. Hodgdon stated that he could only speak to the approved letter that came to them on City stationary. Mr. Bagato stated that there wasn't anything in the file, the representative doesn't have anything and nothing was written in the minutes. Mr. Hodgdon stated that he didn't have a set of architectural drawings that were approved with anyone's stamp on it for the elevation either. Mr. Bagato stated that when he spoke with Ms. Eva Diek a few months ago, staff at that time informed her that they didn't see any record that it had been approved and the letter was not in the file. That is why we came back to this process. Mr. Hodgdon stated that he had the same exact letter with different dates as the ARC approval for the elevations themselves. Mr. Bagato stated that signage wouldn't be a part of architectural elevations even if it were shown. That is why there should be a different case number, and that case number and letter refers to the original building architecture. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if there was another approval letter for the building only. Mr. Hodgdon answered that there was another approval for the building only; one for building one for signage. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 6 of 17 ++te�rrNOW ARCHITECTURAL RE\TIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Commissioner Hanson suggested that since the Commission could not solve this issue for the applicant, she made a recommendation to review what was being presented today and the other issue could be discussed with staff. The Commission agreed. Mr. Hodgdon asked that in terms of the square footage, who would determine that it be proportionate and asked if there could be some flexibility on the square footage. Mr. Bagato stated that typically they look for a minimum of six (6) inches top and bottom depending on the size of the sign. Sign B is showing a little more. On Sign B they were showing six at sixteen. He suggested that instead of having six at 15, they have 11 at 11. He stated that if we went back to the original proposal on that sign, it was another 12 inches bigger and that would put it less than six and six. Mr. Hodgdon stated that he would take a look at the construction drawings and bring it back for review. Commissioner Gregory asked how this could be handled procedurally. Mr. Bagato recommended that the Commission make a motion approving what we have and the applicant could work with staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) pending review of sign ordinance with Staff; and, 2) Sign B to be a minimum of six (6) inches top and bottom from the element it is located on. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 5. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROY ASARO ARCHITECT, 42220 Green Way, Suite H Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of proposed facade enhancement for Larry Grotbeck (Maytag Building). LOCATION: 74-124 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 SP Ms. Schrader presented the staff report for this project. The request is for architectural review of the proposed facade remodel, and for new paving with paint for the existing parking lot and sidewalks. The upgrades to the existing exteriors include new surfaces, materials and paint. A new brick wall is proposed to screen the parking lot and add GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 7 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION `%We MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 continuity to the design. The preliminary plans include a site plan, roof plan, elevations and perspectives of the building. The landscape plan has received final approval by the City's Landscape Specialist. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the upper screening element wouldn't be revised and would it go across the back. Mr. Roy Asaro, Architect answered that it wouldn't be changing and would not go across the back. He stated that it would be visible from the back element, but painted to match the building. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what would be seen at the ends of the parapets. Mr. Asaro stated that the very end would be thickened and would wrap around. Commissioner Hanson stated that the materials were great and the simplicity of it was nice, however she was concerned about that this building was visible from the rear and nothing was being done to enhance that. She wondered if there was the ability to include parapets in the rear or something to clean that up. Mr. Larry Grotbeck, owner, stated that there has been a tremendous amount of cleanup in the rear elevation. In addition, the parking lot hardscape would dress it up and it would be heavily landscaped. He explained that from Alessandro there would be a new parking lot, and a lot of landscape that would block the view of the rear. The rear of the building was very simple and clean and they have been trying to spend their money most effectively on the front that would most widely be seen. Mr. Asaro stated that they were putting some of sheet metal on the back horizontal elevations and boxing those out to get some continuity from the front to the rear. They felt that the parapet might actually be kind of straight and make the building too simple and boring, so they decided not to put a parapet up there. Commissioner Hanson stated that it still looked like a back, and explained that it was where people would park and felt that you have to address that. She felt that no matter how much landscaping you put in front of it, it would still look like a back. Mr. Asaro stated that there is only one parapet that is visible and it was a very low-sloped roof. He stated that they could wrap a fascia coming down instead of a simple drip edge, but putting a parapet there would oversimplify the building and lose some of the character. The Commission felt that the front looked fine, but stated that the rear needed additional work. The Commission discussed fagade enhancement and participation of the Redevelopment Agency. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 8 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION *00� MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Commissioner Hanson suggested making the rear have some artistic value to it as opposed to it looking like the backside of a shed. Mr. Asaro stated that he could do something horizontal leaving the gable above it to break the plane. Commissioner Hanson stated that would then give them an opportunity to extend an overhang. Mr. Grotbeck thought that he has greatly improved the building by removing the sheds, site clearing, building cleanup, new windows and repair. All this work has been done in a non-facade program that has substantially improved the building and feels that by requiring structural changes would put him out of the game for the rear of the building. Commissioner Gregory stated that he was hoping they could separate the issue of fagade enhancement verses straight architectural approval. The City's perspective is when we have an older building this is the only opportunity to get the building to look nice, as opposed to letting it just be painted. He thought from the Commission's perspective that the changes mentioned would be relatively minimal. Mr. Grotbeck stated that with the cost of construction now, minimal is not a word that works anymore. Mr. Grotbeck stated that based on what he had previously proposed; he would like to get a vote to see how the Commission feels about it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would then have the option to appeal it to the City Council. Mr. Grotbeck stated that he didn't see it in the form of an appeal; he sees it as people understanding what he is doing to the property, understanding the fagade program, and how long he has been at it. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that what bothered him was that the front looked good and the back looked bad. He would rather see the applicant do a little less in the front and take a little bit of the money and put it into the back; just to make the building look whole. Commissioner Hanson stated that if this building came to ARC as a brand new building, the Commission would not approve the back looking significantly different from the front. There are definitely situations where a back is on an alley or butted up against another building where you have the ability to do less to it, but this is on a major street with a lot of traffic going by. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mlnutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 9 of 17 r �'` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Mr. Grotbeck stated that when you drive down Alessandro, the parking lot will look so much better with hardscape, paving and the abundant landscaping that you won't even see the rear of the building. Commissioner Hanson stated that when trees go in they look very small and it will take 10 years for those trees to fill out. Mr. Grotbeck said that what he was saying was that there would be a dramatic improvement with the landscaping that you won't even see the rear of that building. The Commission reviewed the landscape plans and stated that nothing was against the building. Mr. Grotbeck stated that there would be a landscape barrier there; with mounding and a wide variety of landscaping vegetation. Commissioner Hanson made a motion to approve the front of the building, but not the rear. Commissioner Gregory felt that the direction that the Commission was going would be a loss for the applicant. He suggested to the applicant to ask for a continuance and do a study on what could be done in approaching some type of enhancement for Alessandro. Then see if that could be approved by the ARC and move forward with a positive endorsement from the Commission, then that would look better than a negative. Mr. Grotbeck understood and stated that he would like a motion on the entire project. Commissioner Hanson withdrew her motion. Commissioner DeLuna made a motion to approve the project as submitted. No second was made and died for lack of a second. Commissioner Van Vliet made a motion for denial due to lack of enhancement to the rear of the building, seconded by Commissioner Lambell. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, denied Case No. MISC 07-47 due to a lack of enhancements made to the rear of the building. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 10 of 17 EVI ARCHITECTURAL RE COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 6. CASE NO: MISC 07-33 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): iCON ARCH ITECTU RE/JAKE SCHAPP, 1511 Westport Road, Kansas City, MO 64111 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new storefront, signage and awning; Optical Shop of Aspen. LOCATION: 73-061 El Paseo Suite 207 ZONE: C1 SP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. 7. CASE NO: SA 06-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALL SIGNS AMERICA, 15481 Redhill Avenue, Suite B, Tustin, CA 92780 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of three (3) LED illuminated signs with channel letters; Bedrosian Tile and Marble. LOCATION: 73-550 Dinah Shore ZONE: PCD Mr. Stendell stated that this item had been previously reviewed and the Commission wanted to see some follow through on some of the details. The tiles are in, the building has been painted and it looks great. It is in plan check for the equipment screening and we are ready to approve the signage. Mr. Greg Elmassian, Director of Operations, informed the Commission that they were looking at a slight modification to the construction that would match the surface. He stated that what had been approved was stucco, but he heard that trying to match the surface of the building was a better idea. Mr. Stendell stated that the Commission wanted it tied in with the building. Mr. Elmassian stated that there wouldn't be any structural changes it would just be a different surface applied to both sides of the walls. G1Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070828.min.DOC Page 11 of 17 +fi ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Mr. Stendell referred to the signage and stated that his only concern was that the Commission take a look at the attachment detail of how Bedrosian connects to the awning and any exposed metal. Mr. Allan Gale, representative, stated that his preference would have been to completely hide the raceway. He said that what they were trying to do was to use the support rods as a wire way; to go from a letter into that and down so that you don't see any wires. They would try to hide them to the maximum extent as possible. In the instances where they cross through thin air he would recommend painting them the same color as the wall so from the street it wouldn't be seen. Commissioner Vuksic asked if letters that stand up on a fascia have exposed rods. Mr. Elmassian stated that with that height, in that area with the wind you would need bracing; you wouldn't want to just bolt them from the bottom. Commissioner Vuksic asked if they could do it with one rod. Mr. Gale stated that he would come up as close to the center of the "O" as possible and then slant it so that he could hide the "footprint" between the bottom of the "O" and the trellis. It wouldn't be completely gone, but it would be very small. The Commission discussed the size, color and construction of the sign and hiding the wires. Commissioner Gregory amended the motion to allow the applicant to work with the letters and hide the supports as much as possible. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval subject to the applicant hiding the supports to the maximum extent possible. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL R IEW COMMISSION Ifto MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 8. CASE NO: MISC 07-34 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAC & INC. 73-199 El Paseo, Suite H, Palm Desert, CA. 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront, awning and signage for retail store; She She. LOCATION: 73-199 El Paseo ZONE: C1 SP Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-05 & CUP 07-06 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, ARCHITECT, 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 115, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval a new 18,116 square foot private K-6 school and 16,338 square foot office building; The Jewish Federation & Jewish Social Services. LOCATION: 36-333 Portola ZONE: PR-5 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion subject to: 1) roof plan shall show full parapet closures with crawl spaces; and, 2) architecture only, no landscaping. Motion carried 7-0-0-0. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 13 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 2. CASE NO: MISC 07-26 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY HOUSTON, 13444 Bali Way, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of new architectural plans for Phase 7 through Phase 9 of Shadow Ridge Vacation Club. LOCATION: 74000 Shadow Ridge Road ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Gary Houston, Architect, stated that at the last meeting suggestions were made by the Commission to change the architecture style away from a southwest style because they had some concerns with the architecture. They expressed their desire and likings of other elements and wanted to see those further expressed throughout the building. Additionally, there was a concern that some of the architectural elements that looked like they were providing support weren't providing enough physical mass. They eliminated a series of columns along the front fagade and went to further spaced and much thicker columns. They are now approximately two and half feet by four feet. The third concern was that some of the textured elements, for example the stone veneering, which was located at the entrance of the building could be better placed and spread around other elements. They also agreed to take a look at some of the pedestrian impact areas and pilasters that support the balconies and the pilasters that support the trellis. The forth concern was that there was a group of windows that didn't have natural shading and they addressed that on the third level by extending the eyebrows over both the entrance doorways and windows on the third levels and the balance of the windows on the rear and sides of the buildings. They also addressed the screening concerns and eliminated some of the verticality. He believed that they have addressed the Commission's concerns as expressed in the last meeting. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she liked what they did with the stone, which created more interest along the west elevation; however she still had a concern that the east elevation still appeared grid like. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\HRC Minutes\2007WR070828.min.DOC Page 14 of 17 ram► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 Mr. Houston explained that they tried to break up the grid portion to make it asymmetrical on the plan. One side of the column was two and a half feet by four and a half feet and the other was 24 feet by 24 feet or 18 feet by 8 feet, so there was a symmetrical approach to the balcony that gave the grid pattern. He then discussed the landscaping and placement of trees and shrubs on those elevations. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they did a great job on the other buildings that have already been built, but felt that there was some resistance in making this building what it needs to be. Mr. Houston felt there was no resistance on their part. As brought up in the first meeting, there are changes being made to the interior units and the interior style needed to reflect the exterior style. The Commission and Mr. Houston discussed the reasons for changing the style. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he went through one of the north elevations and said that one of the suggestions made previously was to have a stronger base on the building to give it more horizontality. He saw a base but didn't see a strong attempt to carry a base element across the building. He saw it on the two ends, but didn't see it too much in between. On the next element going across he saw a large fairly dark wall with some windows in it and when he looked at the plan he saw that the wall was flat. For that style of architecture they need to be punched in. He also didn't see deep recessed windows. Mr. Houston stated that they could look at the base. He indicated that they have a pallet color that they would be using. He could certainly take a look at the change and add the face color to that. As far as the element they have basically four (4) planes, the fourth plane being the one they are trying to add the most punch to which is the masonry piece that they added since the last meeting. The stone element punches out almost four (4) feet. Commissioner Vuksic and Mr. Houston discussed the elements and how they weren't punched out enough. Mr. Houston stated that it was about eight (8) to ten (10) inches. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the wall thickness and stated that it appeared that no attempt was made to recess that window in a thick wall. Mr. Houston stated that he didn't think that was the goal. The goal at the last meeting was to provide shading and didn't think they GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Mi nutes\2007\AR070828.min.DOC Page 15 of 17 ram► ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 had to recess each and every window. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't think they had to recess each and every window, but there needed to be a play of some thick walls with thinner walls. Mr. Houston stated that they did try to do that. The Commission and the representatives discussed detailing and the repetitiveness of this building compared to the other buildings. Mr. Peter Rotholm, Director of Development Management with Marriott, stated that there wasn't a lot of difference between the building types. There are three (3) different building types there and most of the changes were basically color changes and stucco. Commissioner Hanson stated that the reason those buildings came off much more rich looking and interesting was because they were able to change from arched windows to square windows with the addition of wrought iron details. Because of this style you can't use those minimums as a requirement because you have to use very simple window structure so it would have to come more from the architecture. The massing is very important in this style. Mr. Houston stated that if creating additional depth to the walls was the goal of the Commission, then they would accommodate that. The Commission discussed the glass on the back elevation. It was suggested to distinguish the ground floor by letting some of the other elements that are coming up to hit something else on the ground level. Commissioner Hanson demonstrated what they could do with the base, the colors, materials and shadow lines. The Commission suggested submitting revisions and changes to Mr. Bagato for his review prior to any future meetings. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, continued Case No. MISC 07-26 with comments. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and DeLuna absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\HRC Mlnutes\2007\HR070828.mIn.DOC Page 16 of 17 v a ARCHITECTURAL REEW COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Hanson and DeLuna absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. TONY B GATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\HRC Minutes\2007WR070828.min.DOC Page 17 of 17