Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-22 t � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES January 22, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 2 Kristi Hanson X 2 Chris Van Vliet X 2 John Vuksic X 2 Karel Lambell X 2 Nancy DeLuna X 2 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: September 25, 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the January 8, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R�IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-45/HTE 07-117 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HENRY'S MASONRY, 80160 Vista Grande, La Quinta, CA 92253 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of 6 foot block wall on property line. LOCATION: 72-897 Sierra Vista Road ZONE: R1 Mr. Swartz presented the proposal and summarized the staff report. He presented photos of the existing six foot high fence and the surrounding area. He stated that the property line is where the wall is located and not in public right of way. The neighbor currently has a block wall and the applicant would like to continue it. There are no sidewalks, just gravel. Mr. Bagato stated that the neighbors had been noticed and asked if there were neighbors in attendance; it was noted that none were in attendance. Commissioner Gregory asked if they had received any responses from the neighbors and Mr. Swartz answered no. Commissioner Gregory asked if it could be a part of the approval to have landscaping in front of the wall. Mr. Bagato stated that they could make it a requirement. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant how he would feel if they requested landscaping in front of the wall. Mr. Ken Savage, applicant, stated that the gravel continues what is already there from other neighbors and the landscaping would not. Mr. Bagato stated that the new code requires landscaping in front of walls. Commissioner Gregory stated that it could be something very simple. Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the wall. Commissioner Gregory stated that if the approval is subject to no landscaping, other neighbors may come in at a later date and request the same thing. He asked the Commission if it made sense not to have landscape there. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�P,RC Minutes�2008�AR080122.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 there should be some landscape there. Commissioner Vuksic amended the motion to require landscaping that is satisfactory to the Landscape Specialist. Commissioner Gregory stated to the applicant that the landscaping could be minimal and something that could be worked out with staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval subject to: 1) adding landscape in front of block wall; and, 2) landscape to be reviewed and approved by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO: SA 08-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PROMOTIONAL SIGNS, 20361 Hermona Circle, Lake Forest, CA 92630 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of two monument signs replacing existing signage; Palms to Pine. LOCATION: 72-655 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C.3 (SP) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CASE NO: CUP 07-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATINS, INC. a subsidiary of T-mobile USA, Inc., 3257 E. Guasti Road, Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91761 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of installation of a 65 foot tall monopalm and a 290 square foot CMU wall enclosure; T-Mobile. LOCATION: 74-675 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�P,RC Minutes�2008�AR080122.doc Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154-room boutique hotel; EI Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented several site plan changes for EI Paseo Hotel. He informed the Commission that the applicant relocated the trash enclosure and moved the loading zone; some of the architectural design was changed to allow more solar panels in the roof area; changed the roof garden to be more desert landscape; a roof plan was provided that calls out the parapet heights; replaced the pools with Jacuzzis to accommodate less water; stepped back the building to the east to soften the building and provided a landscape plan for a section of the garden detail. Mr. Juan Ochoa, Architect, felt that they have addressed all the site concerns mentioned at the previous meeting, especially on the condominium side of the project. He stated that the Jacuzzis will stay on the deck allowing them a little more freedom to modify the parapets and pitches on the condo units. There are three elements that are vertical and the rest of the rooms are stepped back. He presented some photos of the east elevation and stated that there was some concern because the three story building faces this side. This space is very lush and there is about 100 feet of buffer or more from the building and the homes. Commissioner Gregory asked why there was an alternate plan for the west elevation. Mr. Ochoa stated that they were trying to achieve a vaulted ceiling, but it was fighting with the rest of the composition. They feel that they could create the same ceiling but change the parapet of that element to tie in the architecture a little better. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes\2008WR080122.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL R�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Commissioner Gregory asked about the shadowing especially on the condominium portion on the non alternate drawing and stated that there seemed to be more shadow detail indicated. Mr. Ochoa stated that the alternate did not have shadow, but it was the same. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they had a preliminary look at these plans and stated that he liked that piece and what they did with it compared to what they had before. It looked like there were too many styles going on between that and where the condominium portion was. He felt that this was a little more in keeping with it, but felt that it needed more study. He was concerned when looking at the plans how flat some of that stuff was. Commissioner Vuksic and Mr. Ochoa reviewed and discussed the plans. Mr. Ochoa stated that they could deepen the cavity to create more relief. Commissioner Vuksic stated that looking at the re�idential component there were a couple of things that need more work as far as making the plans and elevations match. He was also concerned with the basic look of it and understands that the Commission had suggested that they have some variations in the architecture from the hotel portion to the condominium portion; however he had concerns with the architecture of the condominium portion. He saw some kind of heavy eyebrows and the windows that are set down below those eyebrows are in walls that don't have any relief and glass that is set into these flat walls. He was concerned with the pitch of the roof elements because they are quite steep and in some cases was steeper than 45 degrees, and they have the photovoltaic panels on them as well. He was concerned with what that would look like. Mr. Ochoa stated that they did some research on a membrane that has photovoltaics embedded in them so the panels don't have to be sitting on top of the deck; becoming an integral part of that. Now that they no longer have the pools they don't have to worry about where to place the panels and they can also lower the ceilings on the second floor. They can also play with the parapets because the Jacuzzis could be placed anywhere on the roof deck. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that the panels have some pretty interesting applications and felt that they could be used in an architectural way to add more to the design of the panels. He said that they could have panels that jut out and serve as shade devices for some of the glass, but at the same time be energy reflectors. That would be a more appropriate use of those panels than having them basically clad with what looks like a mansard roof. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008�AR080122.doc Page 5 of 15 . � w � ARCHITECTURAL RE'�EW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Mr. Ochoa stated that they can certainly play with the condominium side taking into account the Commission's comments and integrate the comments made regarding the solar panels and tie it into the architecture. He thought the directive before was that each part of the project needed to have separate identities. He now feels that they may have taken that a little too literally and thinks that they could work to identify those additional elements. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could give each one their own identity, but look unified at the same time. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was more of a separation of residential scale versus hotel scale, but the flavor is the same. Commissioner Hanson was concerned with the doghouse looking access stairs on the roof and stated that they needed to be a part of the structure as opposed to a stair access. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the residential component on the alternate west elevation needed a lot more study. He stated that it is a massive form and it looks spindly. He thought that they would benefit from letting the bottom floor read like a complete base not letting the arched element come down through it, but let that arched element sit on top of the first floor. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Ochoa if the message was clear regarding the condominium area as far as suggestions for changes so that this doesn't turn into a grind for the applicant. Mr. Ochoa stated that it was clear and with a couple of directives from the Commission's comments they can unify the architecture and come back with an elevation that will tie everything in together. Commissioner Vuksic said to be careful not to get too many specific comments on it because then they would run the risk of coming back with a punch list of items. Commissioner Gregory mentioned his concerns with the applicant coming back over and over again. Mr. Bill DeLeeuw, owner, stated that the Commission had approved the minutes of the December 17, 2007 meeting and since that time they have had three meetings with the staff to try and go through all of the comments from those minutes. They tried to address each issue and felt that they had pretty well addressed them and came out with a better project than what they started with. He expressed his concern that the Commission was going back closer to the first submittal and he felt that he did it wrong by going through the punch list from the last meeting and said that he wasn't clear on what the Commission was asking for. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008WR080122.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�IEW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the things that were a complete departure was all the solar panels on the roof. The applicant had mentioned the panels today, but didn't submit anything to the Commission for review. So they were taking it from what it was to something completely different visually. She felt that this raises a lot of questions. She thinks that the massing is much better and everything doesn't read vertical, which is definitely a plus. She then mentioned how heavy the parapets were in comparison to the door. She stated that what the Commission was talking about is making some adjustments based on where the pools might be and where you might want to enclose that roof area. She expressed that they were refinements and not cormpletely changing. Mr. DeLeeuw stated that they took out the pools as a result of one of the comments and everything worked better to make the small spas that gave them more height and no water issue. Mr. Ochoa stated that he failed to bring literature to the Commission for the photovoltaic membranes and how they integrate to the elevation. He indicated that they would work on the elevations and bring some photographs of the actual projects to see how they look in real life. Commissioner DeLuna in reference to the pools stated that she appreciated the sensitivity towards water conservation and that it was very well addressed. Commissioner Vuksic said that he wanted to be clear on the condominium portion that there is still a fair amount of study that needs to happen there. He was concerned with what looked like back doors on the lowest level facing Larkspur Street. Mr. Ochoa stated that there were decks located there and they would have doors. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out what he was referring to and Mr. Ochoa indicated that those were windows. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they looked awfully utilitarian and expressed that a lot more effort needed to be made in letting those demonstrations work with the masses. Mr. Ochoa verified that those are completely recessed openings in the windows and stated that they are about 30 inches deep. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the plans he sees a column next to the window deeply recessed but the entire wall is on one plane and is basically flush with the windows. Mr. Ochoa stated that they will create an exhibit that will clarify how that condition works. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes\2008\AR080122.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 The Commission discussed the access for the two-level parking structu re. Ms. Sheila Weldon, owner of Mojave Resort, was concerned that the project would be three stories on her side and felt that it would be pretty high when she looked out in that direction. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the Shadow Mountain side the project would only be two stories. Mr. Bagato stated that the three story side is shorter than The Gardens. Mr. DeLeeuw asked for specific directions from the Commission and wanted to be clear in his mind with what needed to be done prior to meeting with his architect and with staff. Commissioner Gregory stated that that is the difficult part that the Commission has to be careful with. What we end up doing is giving the applicant a defacto punch list and then they take care of each of those things, but it's more subjective than that. A part of it is a general reaction to the design and Mr. Ochoa understands what needs to be done. Mr. DeLeeuw stated that he didn't mean to express his frustrated in trying to get the project moving to the next level of approval but feels like he has hit a dead-end. Commissioner Gregory stated that one of the Commission's charges is to be very careful with what is built because once it is built it's done and you can't change it afterwards. We have to be very careful, especially on something as important as this particular building, that when it leaves here we feel very good about it. This is a subjective review group not objective. Commissioner Hanson stated that she and Commissioner Vuksic do not want to tell Mr. Ochoa how to design this building because they would approach it quite differently and stated that he knows what he needs to do. Mr. Ochoa agreed. Commissioner Gregory stated that the project is getting a lot better and will be a lot more sustainable. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Mr. Ochoa produced a lot of work very quickly and it is appreciated. The Commission also appreciate how cooperative and respective to the comments. Mr. Ochoa appreciated those comments and wanted to convey to the Commission that he definitely wants to address all the concerns and feels that they are pretty close and feels that the directions are clearer and thinks that it will come together at the next meeting G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008\AR080122.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) getting more relief on the west front elevation; 2) using solar panels in an architectural way to serve as shade, but used as energy reflectors; 3) provide plans for solar panels; 4) tying in the roof access to be a part of the structure as opposed to a stair access; 5) providing an additional study on the alternate elevation of the residential portion; 6) work on the lower level massing of the condo portion; and, 7) landscape to be reviewed by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 6-0 2. CASE NOS: DA 02-01 Amendment No. 2 and MISC 08-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 74-001 Reserve Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 19 homes with a maximum roof height of 24 feet 6 inches. LOCATION: Within the Stone Eagle development west of Highway 74 and the Palm Valley Storm Channel in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. ZONE: HPR Mr. Bagato presented a proposal for the Stone Eagle Development regarding the maximum roof height and stated that there were a total of 24 units with this design. In the Development Agreement it didn't show what the initial height was. Mr. Bagato stated that a home came through for one of the lots that were two stories and he wanted to make sure that it complied. When he went through the Development Agreement it stated that these homes could be two stories but in no event be taller than twenty feet from the pad height. When he went to the grading plan he noticed that one particular home was 24.5 feet above the grading plan. On the plans provided to the Commission the homes were showing details that are a little different; some stone was missing and some of the windows have been changed. His concern was that they were looking at changing the Development Agreement to go 4.5 feet higher than what it originally showed and he wasn't given anything that analyzes those visual impacts. He spoke with the applicant regarding putting up story poles and also getting photo sims. He G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008�AR080122.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 was not comfortable with making a recommendation until he knows if there are any visual impacts on the hillside. He recommended a continuance unless there was more information that the applicant could provide. Mr. Ted Lennon, President of the Stone Eagle Development, stated that they had already gone through the Commission for approv�l and have done all the construction drawings for these homes. He believes that the assumption of the architect was that the guest house over the garage was always going to be three or four feet lower than the rest of the pads. Mr. Bagato picked up on the height issue when a local businessman started construction on his home. The only part of the building that exceeds the twenty foot height limit is the tile roof of the guest house, which is basically 4.5 feet over. Mr. Lennon stated that they have sold nine of these units and two or three are about ready to start construction. Of the nine that are sold, seven are affected because they do not have the elevation change difference. It looks like they would have to go to a flat roof guest house, which means they would have to drop the interior garage heights from 9.5 feet to 8.4 feet leaving enough room for the garage door opener. The living unit would then have to be lowered from 9.5 feet to 8.5 feet and changing to a parapet flat roof. He informed the Commission that these lots were built right up the side of the mountain so there is no ridge line units and no one directly looking at it. He pointed out where the units were situated and how they taper up the hillside with a mountain in front and where the Sommerset condominiums were located. He mentioned that they were two story elements all over twenty feet, but there was a very large berm so most people don't really see anything. The homes would be down behind the berm. Where the homes sit in the hillside they are not on the ridgeline or out on the flats where everyone is seeing them. The Sommerset Condominiums don't see it because they face the other way. If we have decrease the height, it will lessen the interior of the unit by a foot of the usable suite, which matches all the other interior bedroom units on the main house and makes the garage pretty tight. Other people would then be above looking down on flat roofs. Mr. Lennon asked the Architectural Committee to make a statement allowing this variance to the Development Agreement of 4.5 feet inconsequential to the design and aesthetics of the project. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the remaining units could be redesigned so they are not quite so tall. Mr. Lennon stated that it could be done, but it would diminish the finished project because G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008\AR080122.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL R�V1EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 they are interspaced with other units and it would affect the look. Commissioner DeLuna was concerned to see nineteen units that were so far over the height limit and was concerned that the Commission may be setting precedence. Mr. Lennon stated again that it may be a possibility to redesign the units, but mentioned that the canyon setting has a special Development Agreement that has language that allows some discretion at staff level to review. He felt that the project and the neighborhood would be better at that height and not have flat roofs that people would be looking down on. He stated that the average height of the total structure including the overage is 16.5 feet with the main house below twenty feet; so it would only be the guest house above the garage that they were talking about. He mentioned that it would only be the peak of tile that is causing the problem. He stated that they were hoping to get a recommendation for approval through ARC and then if they have to they will take the remaining units or what they can't get approved over the counter to the Planning Commission and then on to changing the Development Agreement. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't have a problem with the height and pointed out that it wasn't as bad as the elevation represented because you are looking at the square mass at an angle, which makes it look a lot wider than it really is. He expressed his frustration as an architect that buildings are more interesting when they have ups and downs. Technically you can build something basically at the height limit and that would be okay, but if you have something that is higher and something that is lower that is not okay. The only thing that is over the height limit here is a dark colored tiled roof and the only part that is 4.5 feet over is one point in space, it's not even a ridgeline; it's one point. He didn't think there was anything wrong with it. Even the line of sight is minimal as far as the impact on anyone. He thought that it was much better than if you had parapets that were up at the height limits. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, asked for details on the site line. Mr. Lennon discussed the site line with the Commission. He then pointed out that the color of the tile just disappears into the mountain backdrop. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he didn't have an issue with the height, but understands the City's standpoint. He asked where the twenty feet came from and if it was a specific number that someone G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC Minutes�2008WR080122.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 could see something over twenty feet. He stated that twenty feet was not enough for two stories. Mr. Bagato stated it is worded "not higher than twenty feet from the approved pad height", so there was nothing against going down, but there was nothing that he recalled being a concern with the height. Commissioner Gregory mentioned the use of story poles in sensitive situations. He wondered if they could put up the story poles showing where the garage and the guest units would be so that they could be looked at and then the Commission would make a decision; then we have done some due diligence. Four and a half feet, even though it is peaked, is still a huge difference compared to what the maximum height is. Mr. Bagato stated that he did ask that they take a look at the tallest lots and stated that this is a Development Agreement and would go through City Council so there is a chance to do the story poles. He stated that he did not have this line of site prior to today's meeting and was more aware now than he was on Friday. So he was not comfortable making a recommendation when he didn't have enough information. He stated that he would like to see the story poles. Mr. Kris Schulz, Vice President, Lowe Destination Development, asked if this was something that definitely had to go to Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Bagato answered yes because they have to change the Development Agreement to get the 24.5 feet. Ms. Aylaian stated that because it is a Development Agreement and has to go all the way through to the City Council for their approval; City Council will look to the Planning Commission and to the Architectural Review Commission as separate input. From the Architectural Review they will want to know if architecturally if this project is aesthetically pleasing and does it fit in the context of the neighborhood. She thought that what they had here would allow the applicant to answer that. She stated that they can address this issue because they have seen the other architecture from the other designs in the Stone Eagle development. We can also work with the applicant before it goes to the Planning Commission to put up story poles because height in Palm Desert is controversial and height on the hillside is exceptionally controversial. By doing the story poles that would allow the applicant a little time before it goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council then can look at the bigger picture, which is how it fits into the community at large rather than just into its neighborhood and setting. The Commission discussed the placement of the story poles. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�ARC MinutesC2008WR080122.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Commissioner Vuksic once again stated that adhering to height limits too strictly actually hurts architecture. Architecture is better when it has the ability to go up and down and be playful with the form. Mr. Bagato stated that because it is a hillside area we have to look at the aesthetics and how it impacts to the hillside not just the height in relationship to how it looks architecturally. Commission Van Vliet asked if this was the Planning Commission's responsibility and not the responsibility of this forum. Ms. Aylaian stated that the Planning Commission does look at the how the community of Stone Eagle works within the greater context around it; and the Architectural Review is looking more at the architecture within Stone Eagle and how it works with its immediate neighbors. The Commission discussed the possibility of the applicant providing story poles prior to approval. The line of site drawings presented by the applicant shows minimal impact on the hillside and the Commission recommended approval based on the line of site drawings. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: PP 05-12 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC., 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618-4200 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of proposed sound wall material for Spanish Walk. LOCATION: 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (former Emerald Desert site) ZONE: R-1 M Mr. Bagato presented a sound wall material for the Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., project. They were not looking for any approval yet, only feedback on the wall material. The product is called Quilight; a plastic material used for sound walls. He passed around the photos of the product and the site from the freeway side. They currently have a twelve foot high wall in that location and would be asking for an additional eight feet to be added to this existing wall. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008�P,R080122.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 After reviewing the product, he stated that when done right and framed it will match the wall around it. He informed the applicant that they would need to provide additional information and a photo sims of the project, as well as providing the total length they would be looking at before he could make a recommendation. Commissioner DeLuna asked what happens to the product in the sun. Ms. Amy Moore, representative, stated that it is a very durable product and when they do their formal application, the Quilight representative will be available to provide additional information. The company has a lot of history on this product; it is very low maintenance and very durable, and is used in many desert type environments. Commissioner DeLuna had concerns with wind, sand and what the sun would do to it over a period of years. Ms. Moore stated that she would be able to obtain more descriptive information from the representative on areas regarding length of time they have used it and the desert conditions. Ms. Moore stated that the reason they are seeking this approval is because they are having significant issues with the sound up against the railroad track. It has been a challenge to the new homeowners in that area and for them in trying to sell the homes. Mr. Bagato asked how long the total length of the wall would be for the project. Ms. Moore stated that she did not know because it was not completely done. However, the length of the project is sixteen buildings, all two stories. She stated that it is beautiful, but they need to offer an additional barrier for their homeowners. Commissioner DeLuna asked if she could provide statistics on what the sun would do to it. Ms. Moore indicated that she would have the representative provide information on wind, sand and sun damage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he thought that this was a solid surface, but upon closer inspection he noticed that it was set in with deep shelves around it. He informed Ms. Moore that those shelves would fill up with dirt over time and when you look up at this you are going to see the dirt. He thought they would have a considerable maintenance issue here. Ms. Moore indicated that she would check with the representative to see if they have something that is solid rather than open. She also stated that she would do additional research on other types of product as an alternative. Commissioner Vuksic stated that aesthetically the general G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes�2008�AR080122.doc Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION � MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 consensus is that it is attractive. Commissioner Gregory asked if they have had studies done on the capability of the existing wall to support this addition in reference to the wind. Ms. Moore stated that they would have special structural calculations done in order to put anything on top of the existing wall. Commissioner Gregory asked if they have tired other things within the structures of the units themselves; such as triple paned glass. The representative stated that they have done all those things. Action: No action was taken. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. � TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLAN ER G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008\AR080122.doc Page 15 of 15