Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-24 �1•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES J U LY 24, 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 10 4 Kristi Hanson X 12 2 Chris Van Vliet X 14 John Vuksic X 14 Ray Lopez X 12 2 Karel Lambell X 9 5 Nancy DeLuna X 4 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Dianne Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 10, 2007 Action: Minutes were not approved due to lack of quorum. Minutes to be approved at next meeting on August 14, 2007. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVA COMMISSION *40e MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-20 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JEROME & TAMIRA DIOP, 72- 450 Manzanita Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of block wall. LOCATION: 72-450 Manzanita Drive ZONE: PR 5 Action: No action was taken due to lack of quorum and the case was continued until the next meeting on August 14, 2007. 2. CASE NO: MISC 07-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERIC L. KLEINER, ARCHITECT, 1620 '/Z 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: No action was taken due to lack of quorum and the case was continued until the next meeting on August 14, 2007. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070724.mIn.DOC Page 2 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Iwo, MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 3. CASE NO: MISC 07-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID SACULLO/CHOICE ENT., 74-923 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 6' block wall set back 12' from face of curb on Black Rabbit Trail. LOCATION: 74-125 Old Prospector Drive ZONE: R-1 10,000 Mr. Stendell presented photos of the proposed wall and a site plan for landscaping. The applicant wanted to continue the same look on the street side yards as the neighbors to the south. He thought the wall could go back, but there is an existing citrus tree that is about six (6) to eight (8) feet away. The Commission was amicable to a five (5) foot wall 12 feet from curb, which has been approved in the past for corner lots. Mr. Stendell stated that there was some infrastructure that was already set up for the wall to make the run and finish off the side yard. Staff felt this was justified and recommended approval. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if this would align with the existing well site. Mr. David Sacullo, applicant answered yes and stated that this was all brand new, due to the fact that two years ago the City changed its wall setbacks to 20 feet. The Commission would be voting on existing property of 10 linear feet at 12 feet back, as well as an already existing garden that comes right up to 12 feet. When he pulled the permits, he had it set up to just finish the wall without having to create anything new. Looking at the photos of the adjoining neighbors, all the walls were at 12 feet. There wouldn't be any obstruction of view. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if he was okay at five (5) feet. Mr. Sacullo stated that he wanted six (6) feet for privacy reasons, because two of the bedrooms and his patio face that direction. He stated that from the finished floor elevation to the street it is over two and a half feet. So standing on his patio, even a six (6) foot wall is bare bones minimum for privacy issues. A five (5) foot wall will not accomplish what he needs for privacy. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070724.min.DOC Page 3 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 Commissioner Van Wet stated that he didn't understand why it wouldn't give privacy at five (5) feet because he was elevated and above street level; the grade goes up and is measured from grade and not from street. Mr. Sacullo indicated where the wall would be and stated that while standing on his patio he could see someone in the street. Commissioner Van Vliet said that people would not be able to look in because it was taller. Mr. Sacullo stated that was true if he were sitting down, but if he were standing up they would see him. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that if someone were standing in the street, they wouldn't be able to see over the wall. Mr. Sacullo disagreed. Commissioner Van Wet stated that at six (6) feet high it would be 20 feet back and the Commission has gone with five (5) feet 15 feet back. Mr. Sacullo stated that the City's new implementation of guidelines is 15 feet and stated that he had pulled the permits when it was 12 feet off curb; all they were doing now was finishing up the project. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he couldn't recall that it was ever six (6) feet high, 12 feet off the curb. Mr. Bagato stated that on the corner of a street side it was. Front yard was 15; corner was 12. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant when he pulled the permit, did he at least have it on the plans that he had pulled a permit on it. Mr. Sacullo indicated that he looked to see if it did continue, but stated probably not. Commissioner Lopez asked how high the existing wall was. Mr. Sacullo answered that it was six (6) feet. Commissioner Van Wet asked how tall the perpendicular side wall was. Mr. Sacullo answered that it was five (5) feet. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the street was that was below the pad height. Mr. Sacullo answered that it was about two and a half feet. Commissioner Vuksic worked out some calculations to determine the eye level and stated that 15 feet back from his wall you would see the top of someone's head if they were six (6) feet tall. Mr. Sacullo stated that he was aware of that. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if he were inside the house you wouldn't see them. If on the patio, you could partially see them. Mr. Sacullo discussed his issues of privacy. Mr. Bagato stated that it could be solved with the proper landscaping. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070724.minAOC Page 4 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVINV COMMISSION a.r+ MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was hoping for a good reason to build a six (6) foot wall, but didn't see any. The Commission has approved several walls at five (5) feet in the last couple of years and they haven't heard this kind of ruckus. He felt there wasn't a reason to go with a six (6) foot wall in this case. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve a five (5) foot wall. Mr. Stendell stated that this had been a noticed hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There were none. Commissioner Lopez asked if this was a variance on the corner at five (5) foot. Mr. Bagato stated that five (5) feet is allowed 15 feet from curb, but the applicant was asking for an exception. It is five (5) feet at 12 instead of six (6) feet at 12. Mr. Stendell stated to the applicant that if he was not happy with the decision of this board he had the ability to appeal it up to the Council level. Mr. Sacullo stated that he would get the wall started at five (5) feet and submit his appeal to go the additional foot. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval of a five (5) foot wall 12 feet from curb. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. 4. CASE NO: SA 07-116 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage for Parkview Spa. LOCATION: 72-445 Parkview ZONE: OP Ms. Schrader stated that the applicant was requesting business identification signage on the north-facing wall. She presented additional photos indicating the location of their sign. She felt that it complied with all codes, but staff considered the fact that they were requesting this sign to be illuminated and might not be the best option. Staff is recommending approval of the sign without the illumination. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070724.min.DOC Page 5 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 Commissioner Hanson asked why they wanted the sign to be illuminated. Mr. Kevin Vaughan, Imperial Sign Company, stated that their hours of operation would be until 8:00 p.m. Mr. Jim Engle, owner, Imperial Sign Company, stated that the lighting concern with the adjacent neighbors had been brought to their attention and mentioned that existing landscaping would block some of the light and the black/white material on the sign would have a film on the back to mitigate the light to some degree. Commissioner Hanson felt that the monument sign could be the one that was lighted and would be more at a person's level. The Commission discussed the lighting issues. Mr. Bagato asked if there was an existing monument sign there and Mr. Vaughan answered there was one that identified the center, however, there is no room for a tenant's name. Commissioner Vuksic appreciated how they tired to mitigate the lighting as much as possible, but felt that they had to look for a solution that would be down below the line of sight. Mr. Engle stated that the proposal was for channel letters and asked if they could keep the channel letters, but make it non-illuminated. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign needed a little more style. Mr. Engle stated that he was trying to make it readable because people would be driving by quite fast. He wanted something simple and easy to read, however he stated that they could put a little more panache into the sign. He asked to work with staff on the approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval of a non-illuminated sign with enhancements made to the sign and reviewed by staff. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070724.min.D0C Page 6 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION r.r► MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 5. CASE NO: SA 07-118 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FERGUSON'S FRAME & GALLERY/MR. BRENT POSEY, 44-853 Portola #A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of installation of square stretch style window canopies/sun protection. LOCATION: 44-853 Portola #A ZONE: R3 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. 6. CASE NO: MISC 07-23 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALICE McLEAN, 42-240 Wisconsin, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an exception to the wall ordinance to allow a 6-foot decorative block wall on a street side set back 12-feet from the face of the curb. LOCATION: 42-240 Wisconsin ZONE: R1 9000 Mr. Stendell stated that this was a corner lot and originally approved for a wall at 42 inches high, which is approvable in that location. However, once the applicant started construction they noticed how much of a grade change there was and realized that 42 inches wouldn't give them what they needed. They came back and requested a six (6) foot wall 12 feet from curb. The applicant has also given staff an idea of what they wanted to use for landscaping. Staff is requesting approval of a five (5) foot wall 12 feet from the curb. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070724.min.DOC Page 7 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 1000' MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic asked about the sidewalk and the landscape area. Mr. Stendell stated that there was about seven (7) feet of landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the original approval of a 42- inch wall. Mr. Stendell stated that Staff could approve that height at the counter however, the applicant, after digging the footings, realized that 42 inches was not sufficient to enclose their rear yard. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant how they thought they could have a 42-inch wall and then raise it to six (6) feet. The applicant's brother stated that his sister had been scammed and asked him to help finish the wall. He was here only to find out what could be done to increase the height. Mr. Stendell stated that the original contractor came to the counter and asked what would be approved for 12 feet from the curb. Staff informed him that it would be a 42-inch wall. Mr. Stendell stated that there should be a five (5) foot easement on either side of a telephone pole in that area, which does put the wall at risk of eventually being in conflict with the power pole. Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant could build a wall in the easement, but it could possibly be torn down if the City were to do any maintenance. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director stated that under grounding is the highest priority out there, but didn't believe that they were looking at Wisconsin, at this point. Mr. Stendell stated that it could be as simple as notching around it so they would be out of the easement. Commissioner Hanson stated that the problem is that that if they bury something it would run along the whole length of the wall. The applicant asked if they could put the wooden fence back up. Ms. Aylaian answered no. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they would have to determine where the easement was located and get it the wall outside of that. Commissioner Hanson stated that if it were inside an easement, it makes more sense to move the wall outside of the easement and be closer to code. The applicant asked if his sister would have to move the wall in two (2) feet. Commissioner Hanson told him that he would have to see where the easements stand. Mr. Stendell stated that he would help the applicant determine the location. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070724.min.DOC Page 8 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIM COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 Commissioner Vuksic stated that when the Commission approves a 17-foot wall setback there is usually a good reason; not just because someone shows up to the meeting. Mr. Stendell stated that in the past the Commission agreed on calculations based on the impact of a five (5) foot wall and the impact of a six (6) foot wall. We have made those calculations when the applicant is on a corner lot and having difficulty enclosing rear yards. Commissioner Van Vliet stated there should be mitigated circumstances why they were varying from the ordinance. Commissioner Hanson stated that the reason with approving these walls would be because corner lots tend have a shallower back yard. Mr. Stendell stated that lots in the Palm Desert County Club are six (6) thousand feet square foot lots and in most cases you are dealing with a substantial smaller lot than what the minimums are in the City for this type of development. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval of a 5-foot wall 15 feet from curb if outside of easement. If easement conflicts still exist, the Commission granted approval of a 6-foot wall 17 feet from curb. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. 7. CASE NO: SA 07-113 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGN, INC. 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new sign program; Waring Medical & Professional Plaza. LOCATION: 72-650 Fred Waring ZONE: OP SP Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant was requesting approval of a new sign program and monument signage for three (3) new buildings that are currently under construction on Fred Waring. He felt these signs were creative and had no problem with them. However, he wanted to keep signage to a minimum. He indicated that the owner had stated his intentions not to allow a lot of signage on Fred Waring. He thought there might be something else added to the sign program that limits the amount of signs along Fred Waring. The program is worded so that you get one sign at the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070724.min.DOC Page 9 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION *fto� MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 main tenant entry or shared wall, however, we would rather see them at main entries. He had concerns with the two suites on the front elevation since they were the only ones that actually have frontage on Fred Waring. He wanted to make sure that the tenants in the back didn't think they'd be allowed the same type of signage. The monument sign proposed is for main tenant identification and brings you into the Fred Waring Medical and Professional Plaza. He felt that these signs were designed nicely and the style was a compliment to those buildings. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that they didn't want clutter on the buildings and stated that not every tenant would get a sign. Mr. Stendell stated that he had the owner's understanding of that, but wanted to nail it down. Mr. David Sacullo, contractor, stated that he didn't intend to clutter his new buildings with signage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on previous sign programs where there is already a building, the Commission has reviewed the elevations with possible sign locations. Mr. Stendell agreed and said that it was something that was discussed with the owner of Best Signs, Inc. Mr. Jesse Cross, Best Signs, Inc., stated that these signs would be at the tenant entry or a shared wall. Mr. Stendell stated that along Fred Waring, this building has two (2) entry doors; the main entrance and two separate entrances into one unit. He then indicated on the plans where the signs might be located. Commissioner Vuksic felt that if there were only one sign on an elevation and it happened to move to another spot it would be a tradeoff. He stated that at this point the Commission doesn't know if there could possibly be two (2) signs there. Mr. Stendell stated that there was leaseable space if someone wanted to come in and create smaller spaces. There is 2,000 feet and they could definitely be split into 2,000 per office, but then the tenants on the second level would want one and then you would have the same situation at the bottom. All of them would have an argument for wanting signage along Fred Waring. Commissioner Hanson suggested making it easier by allowing only one (1) tenant sign on the bottom and one (1) tenant sign on the top on the Fred Waring elevation. Mr. Sacullo felt that would restrict his tenants from making a good living. Commissioner Hanson asked the owner if he were asking for four (4) tenant signs. Mr. Sacullo stated that was correct and felt that the building could GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070724.min.DOC Page 10 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 accommodate two (2) signs on the top and two (2) signs on the bottom facing Fred Waring. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that each individual sign would have to be submitted for review. Mr. Stendell stated that was correct and if staff was not comfortable with each sign, they would submit it to ARC. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that not every tenant would get a sign and Mr. Stendell said that was correct. Mr. Sacullo wanted to make it perfectly clear that every tenant would have a sign, but not every tenant would have a sign on Fred Waring. Commissioner Van Vliet said not necessarily because it would depend on the number of signs and the Commission would not allow the clutter of several signs. Mr. Sacullo stated again that every tenant would have an exposed legible sign. Due to continued outbursts by Mr. Sacullo, Commissioner Van Vliet asked that they continue in a more professional manner to resolve the issue. Commissioner Lopez noticed there were several trees where the monument signage would be located and stated that one of those trees would grow to 25 x 20 feet, which would eventually block portions of the monument sign. The owner would have to either move the sign or cut down the tree. Mr. Cross agreed and said that the monument signage was important, but it wouldn't be the best visible form of business advertising. This monument sign would draw the public into the plaza where they would find the tenant by their individual signs. It would be more of a complimentary type of signage. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, stated that the landscape was new and if they were proposing to put a tree near a sign and the tree would grow up 20 feet, she requested that the tree not be cut down to accommodate the sign. They would have to take the tree into consideration and either relocate the sign or the tree. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they would have to look at the landscaping in conjunction with their signage. Mr. Sacullo stated that he wouldn't relocate the trees. Commissioner Hanson still had concerns with the amount of signage on the building and asked if Mr. Cross could submit plans showing the maximum amount of tenant signage and their locations. Mr. Cross agreed to submit that. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC MinutesX2007\AR070724.min.DOC Page 11 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 The Commission discussed the amount and location of signage on each elevation. It was recommended an outline be submitted indicating where every possible sign would go and the maximum amount of signs at each location. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the type of material on the lower portion of the monument sign and depth between the planes. Mr. Sacullo stated that was about an inch. Commissioner Vuksic suggested more than an inch. Mr. Sacullo stated that he could have Mr. Cross re-do this proposal with a little more detail. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue Case No. SA 07-113 to allow applicant to illustrate proposed signage locations. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. 8. CASE NO: MISC 07-27 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GUCCI, 685 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10022 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new storefront facade; Gucci. LOCATION: 73-061 Ell Paseo, Suite 200 ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007\AR070724.min.DOC Page 12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVI COMMISSION *Moe MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 9. CASE NO: SA 07-121 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PS SERVICES, ERNESTO ANAYA, 7180 E. Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of changes to existing signage; Embassy Suites. LOCATION: 74-111 Highway 111 ZONE: Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-01 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RENATA TYLER, LONGS DRUGS, 141 North Civic Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a new 15, 785 square foot Longs Drug Store. LOCATION: 74-517 Highway 111 — Palm Desert Lodge ZONE: C-1/SP Action: No action was taken due to lack of quorum and the case was continued until the next meeting on August 14, 2007. GAPlanningUanine JudyMord Files\ARC Minutes12007WR070724.min.DOC Page 13 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 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. Bagato presented an architectural plan change for Shadow Ridge Vacation Club, Phases 7 through 9 that changed from a Mediterranean/California style to a more contemporary style. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why they were changing the architectural style. Mr. Peter Rotholm, Director of Development Management with Marriott, stated that it was an internal request from the guests to Marriott. He mentioned the projects for Desert Springs One and Two and stated that when you look at those two entities they were very different. He knew that at some point Marriott would change the architectural style because the guests didn't want to see the same thing everywhere. So they decided to address that issue for them and go with a more southwest look. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the phases were pretty far apart. Mr. Rotholm stated that they were, and that there were three (3) basic pods of buildings. They were very different areas and separated by the golf course as little villages. One of the things they have learned from their guests was that their original design wasn't very pedestrian oriented. So they brought before the Commission the idea of changing the site, which was approved, to a courtyard concept. This lends a much more pedestrian feel to the project and enhances it. Commissioner Hanson commented on the southwest style. She stated that Palm Desert should not resemble Arizona. She felt that the southwest style was hard to pull off here in the desert, particularly when you have very tall volume with very thin narrow elements. The design that was being proposed was coming off as very flat and uninteresting. She liked the concept of changing the pedestrian issue, but wondered if they could pull some elements of GAPlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070724.min.DOC Page 14 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIN COMMISSION r.r� MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 the great architecture accomplished on the first phases into this, but in a more desert style. Mr. Gary Houston, Architect, stated that since designing Phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 they have been aiming at changing the plan, which they were successful at doing approximately a year ago. When they started revising the architecture for this phase, this style was not the only style that was considered. There were probably 10 or 12 different versions. The massing has dropped, they have the towers, which are specifically positioned to hide or encapsulate the HVAC units on the roof. There is a sight line on the roof and all mechanical units would be screened. That is the geneses of the verticality of the buildings. Mr. Rotholm stated that one of the reasons they changed to a southwest look was because they went with a more desertscape to comply with the City's landscape requirements. So now that they have progressed towards being more efficient with their water usage they wanted to take their buildings in that direction. He stated that there weren't a lot of architectural ideas that you could carry through into a desert concept that aren't more in a southwest flavor. Commissioner Hanson begged to differ with that comment. There are not a lot of southwest styled buildings here because this is California; not Arizona or New Mexico. She stated they would have to do a lot of things to make that style work really well and went on to describe that kind of style. Mr. Houston felt that what she had described was more of an adobe style, which didn't fly with Marriott. Commissioner Hanson felt they could do a more desert contemporary style. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the landscaping and transitioning from one scape to another and mentioned carrying some of those elements across the line so that there would be a softer transition. Mr. Houston stated that there was a blending of the colors they used and the graphics. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this style was a difficult thing to do well in this scale of building because it wasn't a vertical style. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what he saw represented in their elevations would be difficult to pull off in the floor plans because you would need a lot of depth to make this architecture work. They would be restricted to the point where you have six (6) inch GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2007WR070724.min.DOC Page 15 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 recesses and massive walls and it's not going to look like what they want it to. Mr. Houston understood, but stated that they have had good success with previous buildings, and they created just enough recesses and six (6) inch and three (3) inch offsets in order to allow one color to die into another and the new color to become prominent. Properly placed palm trees and the right amount of lighting would cast shadows on that area to make it work. Commissioner Hanson stated that the previous project was successful in the way it was detailed. The challenge now would be how they would give interest to the backside of the building to make it just as interesting as the front. Mr. Houston stated that they would create interest in the building and said that on this scale it was hard to show the detail that would be coming in there. The Commission discussed the windows on the west side and thought recessing the windows would cut down on the heat coming through them during the summer. Mr. Houston stated that they would have overhanging decks on the first and second floors, a trellis over the third floor, as well as a shade element over the exposed windows. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they would have to look at creating some depth and make the building not appear quite so vertical. He asked that they bring the plans back so that the Commission could actually see each floor and see what those depths are doing going up the building. He understood the restrictions where they couldn't change the template of the unit, but stated that they could add to the outside of the unit to do what they needed to do. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the towers and suggested making them four (4) sided because he thought they would be visible on the opposite side of the building. Mr. Houston stated that they were actually 3.6 sided because they were capturing the HVAC units within them. Commissioner Vuksic suggested leaving an opening that would be provided below the top of the parapet to service the mechanical equipment. Mr. Houston stated that he would look into that. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that when there is a unit that is fixed, to add any depth to it at all they would basically have a double wall. Once you have a double wall it doesn't matter if you are creating something that is 12 inches thick or 24 inches thick, it's GAPlanning\JanineJudy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007WR070724.min.DOC Page 16 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION 1%0 MINUTES JULY 24, 2007 a double wall; that extra thickness is cheap square footage. Mr. Rotholm understood what he was saying and indicated he would check into that. Commissioner Lopez discussed the grading and asked if they would be stepping in the middle or would they be flat as shown on the plans. Mr. Houston stated that the pad elevations were established with one elevation for each building and they would not break in the middle. The Commission discussed the position and view of these two styles from the street. Mr. Rotholm stated that he would investigate this issue. The Commission felt the view of the transition from the main road would be important. Commissioner Van Vliet also expressed his concerns of the style and hoped that it would work on buildings that size. The Commission asked the applicants to come back with a plan to lose the tall, thin verticality of the form if that is the style that they really want to go with. Work in some horizontal elements as opposed to the tall vertical and change the elevations that have the six big windows that have the awnings because it comes across as very flat and uninteresting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant a continuance. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioner Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0-3, with Commissioners Gregory, DeLuna and Lambell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. TONY BA ATO PRINCIPAL PLAN ER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2007\AR070724.min.DOC Page 17 of 17