Loading...
1998 09 14 ALRC Minutes MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 14, 1998 10:00 A.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:24 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who lead the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham. C. Staff present: Assistant City Manager Mark Weiss, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMA nON OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. There being no changes to the Minutes of August 24, 1998, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members CunninghamlBobbitt to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Site Development Permit 97-603 # I; a request of Stamko for approval of the building elevations and landscaping for three auto dealerships. I. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed his concern on the use of Date Palms in the parking areas where there would be pedestrian traffic because of the hazards that can be incurred by the trees. He would prefer to see the Washingtonia Robusta. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he did not have a problem with the landscaping. He deferred to Committee Member Bobbitt expertise regarding species and uses. He did ask staff if the plans conformed to the Highway III Design Guidelines. C:IMy Documentsl WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 4. Planning Manager di Iorio stated staff's concern was in maintaining the objective of the Highway III Design Guidelines. Staff is recommending the applicant stay within the plant palette listed in the Guidelines to retain the desired landscaping for Highway III. The other issue of concern to staff is the lack ofberming to shield the view into the dealerships from Highway III and the use of retention basin along Highway Ill. The applicant's plans are not consistent with the Guidelines and the Zoning Code states: "....retention shall only accommodate water falling within the fifty foot landscape and right-of-way drainage as well, or retention, and not anything from the parking lots." As proposed, the northern portion of each of the three auto dealerships will drain into Highway III landscape setback. 5. Committee Member Cunningham clarified that the issues in front of the Committee were the retention basin and the Highway III Guidelines. The first issue, retention basin, is governed by the Zoning Ordinance and not really a discussion for this Committee. The second issue is the Guidelines. Planning Manager di Iorio replied this was correct. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated that in regard to the Guidelines, it was his understanding that the Guidelines were established to provide direction for developers of what the City wants Highway III to look like, but this is not necessarily cast in stone. In looking at the Auto Mall plans consideration should be given to its location. From a historical standpoint, up until 1990, the development on Highway III consisted of the Von's Plaza; which had that early California look, that tied in with the La Quinta Hotel, and Simon Motors. Then across the street was WalMart and Albertsons with a more Southern California Contemporary Spanish look, which is fairly standard. Now, we have that Early California look on one end and then we start blending into more of what you normally see in Southern California, the architectural look of the Spanish Contemporary. So, at one end of the street is Simon Motors which has its cars where you can see them from the street and is a flat area. Then you move on toward Eagle Hardware which has all the landscaping and the berming in the front. Issues have been brought up that the dealerships not look like Home Depot. I'm not so opposed to the idea of it not being mounded as long as the landscaping ties it all together and creates a look that's cohesive. As to Guidelines, guidelines are something to start with. I am not opposed to the fact that they do not have berms, as long as the landscape ties together. This is a big complex. There are a lot of things to take into consideration. The retention basin is another issue. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Guidelines were approved since the applicant initially submitted this project? Planning Manager di Iorio replied that we had been working with the Guidelines at the time of the review of this project last year. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC-9-14-98.wpd 2 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 8. Committee Member Bobbitt commented the architecture looked like every other auto dealership. He tended to agree that Highway III was becoming a little bit "hodge-podge", going from the Spanish architecture of Von's down to the Home Depot center. As to the landscaping plans, they look fine, except there appear to be a few too many trees in some of the areas along the perimeter. He also commented that if he was the owner he would want the area open and the cars visible. He did not think that an auto dealership, inherently, as an ugly thing, but in Indio there are definitely some ugly auto dealers. This would certainly be a vast improvement over those. As to the retention basin, is it in an acceptable location or is staff requesting it to be moved to the comer to have more room for mounding along that edge? 9. Planning Manager di Iorio replied this was the issue. The proposal is unable is unable to provide additional mounding because the area is serving as a retention basin for the site, the northern portion of the auto dealers. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff where this water would drains to? II. Planning Manager di Iorio replied the drainage for Highway 111 goes into the retention areas. 12. Mr. Chris Schultz said this was not correct for all three parcels. Highway 111 is super elevated to the north side for Parcels 1, 2, 3. So, all the runoff on Highway 111 is conveyed to the north side ofthe street and we don't pick up any water from Highway III until we get to the next phase of the development to the east. These three parcels do no have a requirement to accept any Highway III runoff. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt said his question was how big are the retention basins were, where they are to be located, and whether the water from these parking areas exit the property onto to Highway 111 and then re-enter the property? 14. Mr. Shultz explained that it would not; it was self-contained. The water would be retained within the perimeter landscape setbacks. 15. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that in regard to the architecture, he would prefer something a little bit more Spanish. He's not going to fight this design, it's a pretty typical auto dealership look to him. 16. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff if the issue with the landscaping was specifically that it was not berrned in the front. 17. Ms. Chris Clarke, the applicant, explained they had designed the landscaping in keeping with the Guidelines. She went on to give her concept of an auto mall. In her opinion, an auto mall with flowering trees in the parking lots C:IMy Documentsl WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 3 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 does not work. If the wind blows anywhere within 40 feet of the cars they have dirty cars that are always in need of cleaning. What they did do was try to accommodate flowering trees on the comers. We will be setback tremendously. In comparison, in the last six months Cathedral City has taken its walls down because they realized that they made a mistake. You don't put auto malls behind walls where people cannot see them. As far as the retention was concerned, as Chris Schultz, Project Engineer, will tell you, we do not accept any water from Highway I I I. We designed it in a way to accept water from the north side and we will accept all the water on the rest of the parcel. The problems with this site is that it falls off six-and-half-feet just to here. So, it's very difficult to pull a berm up to a five foot berm or a three foot berm because we've got to get back to grade down here and what's driving us is Adams Street. What we did do was circle some areas where potentially we can bring out some berming higher than it is. Again, we spent a lot of time designing this and we understand what the City's Guidelines are, but we also understand that this is a very different commercial site and cannot be compared to an Eagle Hardware or Home Depot. It's an auto mall where their product is sold from the parking lot and actually will look a lot better with the new cars. Also, wherever you see the berms, whether they're two foot berms or three foot berms you've got to remember on top of those berms are going to be shrubbery so you can get to five feet. There are, however, areas highlighted on the plans where we can create some larger berms. 18. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he could accept their argument about not using the flowering trees versus the Mesquite. But the Mesquites can be messy as well, and they have very tiny little leaves that get into every nook and cranny of your car if you park under one or anywhere near it. He did not believe this was a viable alternative. In addition, the Mesquite trees can blowing over and cause problems, especially with the drip irrigation system, they do not tend to root very well and can be high maintenance. 19. Ms. Clarke stated she would be open to any alternative nonflowering trees. The last thing the dealers want are messy or high maintenance trees. 20. Mr. Shepardson, landscape architect for the project, commented that blooming trees cause more of a problem from staining than the Mesquite leaves. Their watering system for the Mesquites are deep to promote a deep root growth to avoid the toppling of trees which you can have from surface watering. There are things we are trying to do that will help to curb the issues brought up by the Committee. We are trying to keep consistent with somewhat of a desert theme. This is why we are using Blue Palo Verdes as our flowering tree and the Mesquites as our non-flowering tree. There are not too many trees that you'll find that are clean, perfect trees unless you get into the silk varieties. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 4 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14. 1998 21. Committee Member Bobbitt replied that his point was well taken. People are continually asking him for trees that are not messy and he is yet to come up with one He continued by commenting on the proximity of the trees to the cars. He stated that some of the trees were going to have fairly big canopies and without maintenance. The problem is that the applicant can plant what the City requires and after the fact they can trim them back till they are only twigs and stumps which also defeats the City's goal. 22. Mr. Shepardson replied that maintenance was a key issue. Money would have to be spent to protect their investment, but some people don't realize that and will go with the cheapest bid and worst look. 23. Committee Member Bobbitt asked where the City stood on the flowering trees. He had read staffs recommendations and the Highway III Guidelines called for more flowering trees but, asked if there was a compromise. Could the trees be planted- in such a manner that they did not overhang on the cars or, maintained in such a manner that they did not rot directly over the cars. As the prevailing winds usually travel west to east, they most likely would not have a problem with the leaves. 24. Committee Member Cunningham asked if there reasoning for using the Mesquites was because it was the lesser of the evils? Mr. Shepardson replied it was consistent with the theme they were trying to create. 25. Committee member Cunningham asked if the Mesquite trees were on the Guidelines. Mr. Shepardson relied they were not. 26. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the applicant consider the Chillensas. They do drop a bean pods, don't blow around, and would not get on the cars. He did not believe that would achieve anything by using a Mesquite tree. He would prefer to see a tree with a larger leaf, and from a maintenance standpoint, it would be easier to keep a car clean with something that has a larger leaf. 27. Mr. Shepardson commented that most trees within the desert palette are small leaved, unless you use something that is a little more lush in character. 28. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he did not have a problem with the Mesquite, but they can be a maintenance problem. He was torn between what the City Guidelines required and the maintenance of the landscaping. 29. Committee Member Cunningham asked why the Mesquite trees were not included in the Guidelines? There are other trees on the Guidelines that are non-flowering. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 5 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 30. Planning Manager di Iorio answered that all the trees noted in the Guidelines are flowering. The original concept is to have the trees flower at different times of the year. It is up to the applicant to do a mixture to achieve a look that has some variety of trees that will flower all year long. 31. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the trees could be relocated to accomplish both goals. Mr. Shepardson commented that one problem was the locations on top of the berms was where most of their signage was to be placed. If trees are planted there, you will blocking the signage and create another problem. Discussion followed as to alternative sites for the landscaping. 32. Mr. Shepardson continued that a lot of thought was put into the natural movement of the site and where the locations of the display areas versus the new car parking spaces were located. 33. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the concept of the site and the appearance of the higher display pads. 34. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the pads were not higher, but were at curb level. 35. Mr. Shepardson corrected her saying they could be as much as a foot higher than the lot behind them. 36. Chris Clarke commented that the Specific Plan limits the height of the display pads to 12" from the grade. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the applicant had not planned on utilizing the elevation change due to safety issues. Ms. Clarke agreed saying the dealerships do not want people falling off their display pads. 37. Committee Member Cunningham restated that the pads were up about 12" and then you drop back down to grade. Mr. Shepardson gave an overview of the landscaping site. 38. Committee Member Cunningham stated he agreed with the Guideline, and the berming was good, but the entire project needs to be looked at to create an overall blending affect. He did not believe the applicants were that far outside of what should happen at this site. He felt the project looked good. He agreed with Committee Member Bobbitt that he would prefer to see an Early California Colonial or Spanish architecture, but that whole theme got lost right after the Von's Plaza. The other developments did not carry on with this theme and in his estimation, you can't ask the applicant to continue on with a theme that others did not follow. He went on to point out that the C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 6 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 Torre Nissan building looks a lot like the Desert Sands Unified School District building. He then went on to discuss the areas with the flowering trees. He asked if there were a number of flowering trees that were part of this project? Planning Manager di Iorio replied they have two trees at each of the intersections which are Palo Verdes and are showing an Acacia tree on Highway III and Adams Street and those are the trees that the applicant noted as using and there are about eight of them that are flowering. 39. Mr. Stephenson went on to give a detailed explanation of where the trees were located on the site. 40. Chris Clarke explained that most of the flowering trees were located on the perimeter of the site. 41. Planning Manager di Iorio told the Committee Members that when the Guidelines were written the areas at the intersections were to be Palm Trees because that signifies a driveway and/or intersection. The flowering trees are then incorporated into the major portion of the project. 42. Mr. Stephenson noted that the Palm Trees were to be a back drop into those intersections. 43. Planning Manager di Iorio stated that was true. She also mentioned other developments that have conformed with the Guidelines where each comer treatment is with Palm Trees for the entry into the project, or signal, and then the remainder are the flowering trees. 44. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant if this was what they had done. Mr. Stephenson replied that they did not have the Palm Trees shown on the landscaping plan displayed. They took them off because they were on site. Committee Member Cunningham asked ifthey planned to keep the Palm Trees as part of the theme. Discussion followed about the Palm Trees. 45. Committee Member Cunningham stated he supported the Highway III Guidelines. However, he believes that each project should be looked at on an individual basis. In this instance, the applicant had done a very good job with respect to berming and not berrning and he believed their reasons for not berrning were justified. He appreciated Ms. Clarke's willingness to include in their conditions that the area adjacent to Highway III is not to be used as a storage area for the overflow of cars, but strictly for the new car display. The City can require the berrning and hide the cars, but being good business people, you are going to need to find a way to get those cars up in the sight of those passing by. It is going to be a constant battle to get the cars in sight. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 7 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14,1998 Why not deal with the problem in the beginning? I don't think that the Guidelines in this specific situation, are appropriate. I think that we should be able to get the landscaping down to where the cars can be seen. Mr. Stephenson pointed out there was retention and the berming look. He would like to make it a free flowing plan that continues to adhere to the Guidelines. 46. Committee Member Cunningham reminded the Committee that the retention basin was another issue separate from the landscaping. The retention basin guidelines are now governed by City Ordinance. Mr. Stephenson advised the Committee they were providing retention. 47. Committee Member Cunningham questioned the placement of the retention, in that the City Ordinance required retention to be on-site. Planning Manager di Iorio confirmed this. 48. Planning Manager di Iorio asked the Committee Members to look at Page 3 of the staff report, to go through some of the recommendations to change or delete them. These recommendations would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review. The first condition recommends changing the plant list to be consistent with the Highway III Guidelines and the applicant has stated she would be willing to work with staff. Do you want to retain that condition or is that something that you want to have removed? Under Landscaping, on Page 3 of the staff report, item number I recommends elimination of the plants not listed in the Highway III Design Guidelines plant palette. The applicant has proposed barrel cactus, and yuccas, and they are not part of the Guidelines. The Committee needs to decide if they want to keep staffs recommendation or delete it. 49. Mr. Shepardson interjected that their plant materials are not obnoxious plant. It is very consistent with the look they are trying to establishing and the look that is established in other newer developments along Highway III. 50. Ms. Clarke asked if she could get a copy of the Highway III Design Guidelines as she believed her copy was not the final approved version. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the applicant had agreed to work with staff to resolve the plant material issue 51. Planning Manager di Iorio went on to the next point: "Replace the Hybrid Mesquite trees with the flowering trees listed in the Highway III Guidelines plant palette. Double the number of trees proposed along Highway III." Is this the consensus of the Committee or is staff to modify, or delete this recommendation? 52. Committee Member Cunningham recommended the Hybrid Mesquite trees be accepted due to the issues raised and no other alternative has been provided. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 8 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 53. Planning Manager di Iorio acknowledged Committee Member Cunningham's remarks and asked Committee Member Bobbitt ifhe concurred. 54. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that after hearing their argument, he would agree with their request as long as the trees are maintained in such a manner. The other issue is whether or not the number of trees along Highway 111 is sufficient? Discussion followed as to the location of trees. 55. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the sidewalk was standard in regard to its setback from the street? Planning Manager di Iorio replied not necessarily. They based it upon their retention areas and how it works. Committee Member Bobbitt commented that some of the areas were wider, and could accommodate the trees, but you're going to run into problems if you try to get any trees in the parkway. They will eventually grow out into the street. Discussion followed about Cal Trans and the 12 foot right-of-way and limitations. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping 56. Following discussion, Planning Manager di Iorio suggested changing the Condition #2 bullet point to read: Replace the Hybrid Mesquite trees with the flowering trees listed in the Highway 111 Design Guidelines plant palette. Increase the number of trees proposed along Highway 111, where appropriate. 57. Mr. Shepardson commented this was going to highlight and open up your view to these display areas. It will have Palm Trees on either side and then be brought down in scale with the density of the Mesquite trees and then open back up to give a view of each of the display areas. It is not consistent all along which 1 think is the City's concern that the whole strip was going to be display area. 58. Committee Member Cunningham commented on the fact that the cars would be silhouetted by the planting of the trees which is quite attractive. 59. Planning Manager di Iorio asked about Condition #3 regarding berrning and asked if the Committee Members wish to delete the section. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the berrning was separate from the retention issue. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the issue is they are tied together because of the need for the retention. 60. Mr. Chris Schultz stated he disagreed because the retention and berrning occur in different locations. The retention is actually a by-product of creating a view corridor to your special display areas. Planning Manager di Iorio replied that because of the retention you will have to take space from the northern portion ofthe site which does limit your ability to do more berrning. C:IMy Documentsl WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 9 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 Mr. Shultz replied that was not necessarily true. The retention was just a by- product of creating the low point to see the display areas. We don't have any retention where we have the berming. Planning Manager di Iorio stated there was a certain amount of retention they would have to accommodate because they would be bringing the water off-site. Discussion followed regarding the berming and retention. 61. Committee Member Cunningham asked to finish his statement. We're turning into a berming issue, but we've also talked about limiting the height of the berms so it doesn't effect what we're trying to accomplish with the site. 62. Planning Manager di Iorio asked if there were areas where the applicant already had looked at to be able to increase the height of the berm? Mr. Shultz stated this was true. 63. Ms. Clarke stated that. anywhere we would increase the berming is not where the low points are because they are going to naturally bring that area down to keep the display pads in view. They did not want anything in front of them. Where we would increase the berming has to do with the highlighted areas which is where the berming is anyway. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was where the City wanted to have the retention; not in front of the display areas, but as screening for the regular display area. 64. Committee Member Cunningham thought it might be beneficial to use another term as retention was not the issue. Mr. Shepardson replied that it was a by-product. 65. Committee Member Cunningham stated that it all comes to down to compliance with the Ordinance. The applicant will have to look and see how they can comply. 66. Planning Manager di Iorio reiterated that it was staffs position that the applicant had not complied with the Ordinance. More berming was needed to comply with the Ordinance. 67. Committee Member Cunningham stated the berming and retention areas will have to be consistent with the Highway 111 Guidelines and Zoning Code. 68. Attorney Carol May asked if they could look at a copy of the Ordinance. Planning Manager di Iorio stated she would supply them with a copy, but it was the same as what was contained Highway 111 Guidelines. Discussion followed regarding compliance with the Ordinance 69. Following discussion, Committee Member Cunningham stated that as far as this Committee stands, they approved of the project as submitted with respect to the berming and retention. C:IMy DocumentsIWPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98. wpd 10 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 70. Planning Manager di Iorio asked about the Committee Member's recommendation on the building elevations. Staff had some minor design changes they were requesting under the Building Elevations Is there a recommendation for any of those, or was the Committee recommending the buildings as proposed? 71. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff to explain what their purpose was in requiring the wainscotting. 72. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the issue was one of visibility into the site and maintain some individuality for each of the buildings. Staff was requesting minor design additions to each of the buildings. One suggestion was to provide a trellis element over the vehicle display areas at the northwest comer of Parcel I. A second was a change in building materials on the north elevation to a different block material at the base of the building to give a different type of texture to the building. This is primarily for the Chrysler Center. 73. Ms. Clarke asked if she was recommending the trellis on the northwest comer because this site slopes down six feet to that point, causing you to look down into it. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was true. 74. Ms. Clarke stated staff was trying to design the site so the vehicle display area was not visible as it is an unusual site, unlike the other dealerships. The Chrysler site is 12 feet below the other sites by the time the building is constructed and that is why staff is recommending it there instead of anyplace else. 75. Planning Manager di Iorio stated her concern was visibility and not just parking at this site. Everything needs to work together as viewed from Highway Ill. That was why staff was recommending a trellis to this project site. 76. Mr. Tom Walker, architect for the project, stated that as far as the wainscot was concerned, he did not see the reason for it, but it's not a difficult thing to do. It changes the design concept to something we did not intend it to be. I know there's a lot of commercial projects around with these wainscots that are different colors than the rest of the building, but that's not what we were trying to do. Ifwe have to, we have to. As far as the trellis is concerned, we would be strongly against it. To begin with, there is a six foot wall behind that area that screens off the rear yard and you would not be looking over that wall. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-] 4-98.wpd 11 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 77. Planning Manager di Iorio pointed out the wall on the plans along Adams Street and then along the project area. Staff s concern is the view into the site. 78. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed the fact that he didn't understand the need for the trellis. He asked if it would resemble the trellis over the Civic Center parking lot and would it be for shade. 79. Planning Manager di Iorio replied it was shade for the vehicle display, to break up the view into the site because you're looking down into the cars. Staff is not recommending wood necessarily. These are contemporary buildings with industrial-type materials. You can introduce metal, or some other type of material, and have a nice structure. 80. Committee Member Cunningham stated that regardless of the expense, it appears to create more clutter. The openness is better and the trellis appears to tighten up the site. 81. Mr. Walker stated he agreed and suggested they look at the landscape plan as he thought the trees had an effect on the site as well. 82. Committee Member Cunningham stated he agreed. The landscaping softened the wall and the trellis created more clutter. He could not agree with recommending the trellis. 83. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he too agreed and did not see the need for the trellis. 84. Committee Member Cunningham stated the wall was a split face block and asked if it would be painted. 85. Mr. Walker stated the split face block would be painted. In addition, they had two textures that could be used. One has a machine-applied plaster on the upper portion, with a texture below which would be a slightly different color than the upper portion. 86. Committee Member Cunningham stated that this part of the building is not an area that you would want to draw attention to and when you add wainscoting to something you're bringing attention to it. 87. Mr. Walker asked staff where they were recommending the tile band. 88. Planning Manager di Iorio stated staff was recommending was to have the tile band carried around, starting at the service area, then carrying it around the roof element and the machine-applied plaster to the front to add some color. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 12 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 89. Mr. Walker stated this was a recessed area. Recessed all the way around, even on the service building. It is going to give you a slight shadow between the plaster and block walls. 90. Committee Member Cwmingham stated he was not a proponent of using tile bands as they did not have a long life. It appears they have created the effect by bringing the band around and creating a shadow line around the building. The building's low enough and it does not need any more. More detail is going to bring it even lower. 91. Plarming Manager di Iorio asked about the other tile insets on the Mazda Superstore. Staff was recommending the addition of the cantilever to provide more shadow lines on Highway III and pulling out the one receiving area roll-up door and having the building come out and providing another shadow line. 92. Mr. Walker stated they had spent considerable money doing this around the large doors that are more exposed to Highway III and they could do something like this. Discussed followed regarding the architectural and landscape design plans. 93. Committee Member Cunningham stated he did not see the need for it. At least not from the standpoint of bringing attention to it. 94. Plarming Manager di Iorio stated it was not bringing attention to it. It was to create another shadow line and break up the wall. 95. Committee Member Cunningham suggested an inset, a 12 inch block or something. Mr. Walker stated that was possible. 96. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was the kind of design element staff was looking for. 97. Mr. Walker asked if staff had noticed that most of the windows were recessed so the block is inset about two inches from the other block and to give definition. 98. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought that could be a solution as it appears to be screened. He then asked what the "gingerbread" was around the larger doors. 99. Committee Member Cunningham stated it was the popouts. Discussion followed regarding the treatment of the windows. Following the discussion it was determined that the applicant would recess the windows around the Chrysler building. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 13 Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee September 14, 1998 100. Planning Manager di Iorio then asked about the Mazda Superstore. Staff was looking to have some relationship to the others. Staff had asked that there be a tile inset on this building and some other tile treatment on the machine- applied plaster parapets. 101. Committee Member Cunningham stated he would require the same as the other building. He did not believe there was a need for it and when a builder is using tile on an exterior, as a band, it is tough on the upkeep. 102. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members CunninghamIBobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-603 #1 to the Planning Commission with the changes as recommended. Unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members CunninghamlBobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee to the next regular meeting to be scheduled as needed. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :45 a.m. on September 14, 1998. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC-9-14-98.wpd 14