The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-04-19 . _ ,- . � . �, . r �_--. � � � . CITY OF PALM DESERT . � � - � , ' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION . , �� . M I IV UTES �., . • � � - - - �, ; � APRIL 9, 2019 , . . � , , , t I. CALL TO ORDER - � , The meeting vvas called to order at 12:30�p.rr�. � �. , � , . �. II. ROLL CALL . ; Commissioners � Current Meeting Year to Date � � � Present Absent Present Absent � � Chris Van Vliet, Chair � X 7 � � Karel Lambell, i/ice Chair X 7 Allan Levin X � 7 � Michael McAuliffe �: X 7 . . Jim Mclntosh , X � � 6 1 Jim Schmid X � 3 � 1 John�Vuksic X 7 . , - � Also Present . � � Ryan Stendell, Director, Community Development , 1 � Eric Ceja, Pri�ncipal Planner � Kevin Swartz, Associate �Planner , __ Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner . � , � � Alex Vasquez, Officer Code Compliance � � � � , <- Janine Judy, Recordi�ng Secretary - , ,- � Cancelled meeting: . . � III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS � None � � . � � � IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 12, 2019 and March 26, 2019 Action: V � Commissioner Levin moved to approve the March 129 2019 meeting _ . � � minutes with minor, changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner �� McAuliffe and carried by a 6�0�1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, � Schmid9 Van Vliet, an.d Vuksic voting YES and Mclritosh � � ' . Q - � � � � ARCHITECTIJRAL RE'v�ry�W � -�` . � COMMISSION �'� M I N UTES �� . - � � A ri I 9 2019 � , p � , - , � � Commissioner Levin moved to approve the March 26, 2019 meeting � ,minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a, . � 5-0-1-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, �and Vuksic voting YES and Mclntosh and Schmid abstaining. , . . , V. CASES:,; "� , . \ , . . _ � � A. , Fi nal Drawi ngs: � , . � � 1 I / � . � . 1. CASE NO:,SARC 19-0008 � � � APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: BEST SIGNS, Attn: John Cross, . � � . 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 ) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a �.� requeJst to �construct�a new entry monument sign; The Retreat at Desert Willow. � � LOCATION: 38-200 Portola Avenue ` . � . � ZONE: P.R.-5 . 1 . V ' Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented a proposal to � construct a new monument sign for The Retreat at Desert Willow. The 15.52 acre site is�� located s-outh of Frank Sinatra Drive�on the . � east side of Portola.Avenue (Portola) adjacent to Desert Willow Golf Resort. On June 11, 2015, the City Council �approved 112 � �. � condominium units-within 28 two-story buildings. He stated this is - � almost built�out and they are proposing a new entry monument sign on Portola. It will be located within�an existing landscape area at�the � . � � entry into the condos.�The sign is 4'-6" tall and non-illuminated. The Commission reviewed the construction ofthe sign, letter heights, , and flowers around the monument. Commissioner Vuksic stated this � n was a nice clean desi n and moved for a roval. �� g pp . , ACTI O N: � ^ \ ,� Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmid and carried 6-0-1� with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, � Schmid, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Mclntosh absent. � � � � '� � . � � '� . , 0 � � � � Page2of 14 � � , G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.docx � . J / �� '! \ . , . [I ARCHITECTURAL REV'�°��J COIVIIVIISSION � ' . MINUTES � � April 9, 2019 , � , � . . � � - 2. CASE NO: MISC 19-0008 �, � APPLICANT AIVD ADDRESS: ECOLIVING, 42-525 Melanie Place, �,Suite 5, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ' \ \ � NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a � � � �-� design review for a proposal to construct a 3,777 square-foot carport - � structu.re within the parking lot of an existing office parko ' . � LOCATION: 77-564 Country Club Drive � ; , ` � � ZONE: S.I. � , - - � � -�= Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, reminded the Corr�mission that � � � this project for a pre-manufactured carport structure was continued � � _ from March 26, 20�19, to allow the applicant to �address the � � Commission's comments regarding carport design compatibility with the existing carports on-site. The applicant has addressed the design � � by using a flat roof for the proposed structure and proposing decorative beam end caps to more cl�sely resemble the existing ; , � ", � - carports. Staff is recommending approval of the updated carport with , � \' � a condition that landscape be provided in the north and south � landscape planters to help soften the area. � -�� . � . The Commission reviewed and discussed the carport roof, the decorative rafter tails, and the color of the existing buildings. � . � - ' . . � � ACTI O N: � � � � � � �. � � Commissioner Larr�bell moved to approve subject to: 1) landscaping shall � be provided in the north and south landscape planters; and 2) painting all portions of structure to complement the � office building. Motion was . � seconded by Corr�missioner McAuliffe and carried by a 6-0-1 vote with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Schmid, Van� Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Mclntosh absent. � � � � ; . , , � . . , � - . _ i , G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.docx - Pag e 3 of 14 , - , J \ , - ,�. � ARCHITECTURAL RE'v�i,tW COMIVIISSION ��-`' _,. _ . �, . . IUI I N UTES , �� Apri I 9, 2019 - Commissioner Mcintosh arrived at 12:4 .m , 5p . . I 3. CASE NO: SARC 19-0009 � � � � APPLICANI' AND ADDRESS: BEST SIGNS, Attn: John Cross, 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264. � , , . . ,- , � - NATURE OF PROJECI'/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a � sign design review for rr�odifying existi�ng signage: 1st Bank. � ` � . LO CATI O N e 73-000 H�i g hway 111 � � , , . . . , � � ZO N E: D.O. � � � �- . � � � , Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, p�resented a sign design review for 1 St Bank on the�northeast corner of Highway 111.modifying an ., existing monument sign, modification of three (3�) existing wall signs . located higher than 20'-0" from building grade, and modification of a . - wall sign on a narrowfascia The existing non-illuminated cabinet sign � � will be modified by adding a 9.71 square-foot cabinet, which v�ill be internally-illuminated. The applicant plans to modify existing walls � signs on the eastern, southern, western and northern building , ,elevation by adding a . logo to �,the existing sign copy. Staff is _ - recommending approval of the monument sign as designed; granting the exception on Signs 1-3 with two (2) conditions of approval: signage shall be centered on the height of the fascia in a manner � consistent vuith the. adjacent��Lee &�,Associates wall sign and where� signage is moved or replaced the applicant shall ensure the fascia is restored to match the building; and Sign 4 shall be redesigned with � � a reduced length�to allowforwiderspacing from the building corners. ` �'he Commission reviewed and discussed wall �Si�gn 4 and was concerned that the space between the lettering and the ends.of the, � wall appeared cramped. They.suggested reducing'the letters in order � � to retain some of the wall space so that it would fit better with the new logo. Commissioner Mcl�ntosh said the Commission has to be � � � careful about designing the composition of the sign. He said without � - s ecificall �dictatin what the need to�do he su ested the a licant p Y g Y 9g pp � � restudy the scale. MR. JOHN CROSS, Best Signs, suggested � � making the letters srrialler and feels this will be a better look than shifting it over. � � � ; . , . , . � . � � , , . , � � � - � r , G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Page 4 of 14 . � _ .� � , \ .�{ � ' i � � ARCHITECTIJRAL REV:��:;�1 COMMISSION � -„ � MINUTE� � . ' � ,April 9, 2019 - . ; . . � � . � - . � , - ,, . . ,� The C�omr.nission and staff discussed Signs 1-3 on the upper fascia � � and suggested they be centered� on the height of the fascia, � ; consistent �rith the. adjacent Lee & Associates wall sign, and fascia . . . restored to rnatch-the building. � � . ACTI O N: . , . � . . , . , � Comrr�issioner Lar�bell rr�oved to approve the monument sign and signs #1, � - 2, and 3; 2) sign #4�shall be resized and reviewed and approved by staff; 3) - � � align bottom of relocated.signs to match adjacent tenant wall signage; and 4) patching and re-painting�fascia where signage is removed to match �prior . `✓ � to placement of signage. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and � . carried by a 6-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclritosh, Schmid, � Vuksic, and Van Vliet voting YES. � � . � . . � , � � � . 4. CAS E� N O: SARC 19-0006�� - � , � APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PLUS SIGN CO. INC., 21034 ' ,� t , Osborne Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304 , � � � NATURE OF PROJECT/APPRO-VAL SOUGHT: Consideration�of a � sign design review for a request to remove and replace two (2) � , �� existing gas station pricing signs; Mobil. � , � L�CATION: 73-001 'Country Club�Drive � � � � _ � -�, � ZONE: P.C.-(2) � � � . . � � . � `� . � , ;Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to remove � . � � and replace two (2�) existin�g gas changeable type pricing signs with ti � two�(2) digital pricing signs at the Mobi.l gas .station on the corner of � . Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. The proposed pricing - monuments are 7'-10.5" tall, includes a cabinet to identify "Mobil", a . cabinet advertising the station's proprietary gasoline, and four (4) � ' di ital cabinets for asoline ricin . The si ns are double-sided� and g g p g 9 . �� oriented tovuards the adjacent right-of-way. The cabinet conforms to � `design standards for illumination �and design: The area of the sign � � � , meets code and�the use of digital price panels is consistent with other - signs approved �throughout the City. The applicant has proposed a . � � decorative cap,,and a river-rock base consistent with the station's . building. Staff is recommending�approval of the two (2) signs as , , � proposed. � � � . . , . . � . . - . ` , . �J - � G:\Planning\JanineJudy�4RC\1Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Page 5 of 14. . , � � . ,, . j . ,1 _ � � - ARCHITECTIJRAL R��v��W COM�MISSION - '��-��' - � � A ril 9, 2019 MINUTES � . � � � . � � l, � ` i � � � � Li i Commissioner Schmid asked if the srr�og signs will be a part of the _ , signs and Mr. Melloni said they would not be allowed. .�, , . � � Chair Van Vliet asked if the base will be constructed as depicted on � the drawing-s orwill the 'ust ut rocks around the bottom. Mr. Melloni . YJ p � . said it will�be a built�-up base and will match the river rock walls that � � run around the edge of the property. Commissioner Vuksic said having some kind of base there seems to finish it off. Commissioner . McAuliffe suggested a constructed base with rock mortared into . - ' � � `._�:.place similar to the walls around the p-roperty and�no cobble,�piled � arou�nd the bottom. � � � . ACTI O N: , , . �. � � Commissioner McAuliffe moved to approve as proposed subject to a _ constructed base and not cobble at base. Motion was seconded by � � Commissioner Levin and carried by a 7-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, � McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Schmid, Vuksic, and Van �Vliet voting YES. �� 5. CAS E N O: SAR C 19-0003 ;. � � . � , , � � � � APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SIGN-A-RAMA, Attn: John - � McDonal�d, 41945 Boardwalk L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 � . �� . � � \ � J - - � NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a � . ,. si�gn design review for a request to construct two (2) monument signs . . for the respective�hotels; Courtyard and Residence Inn Il�arriott. � . , , � � LOCATION: SWC Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive . � - � ZONE: P.R.-5 � . � � � � � � Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to construct � two (2) monument signs for the Courtyard and Residence Inn Mar.riott hotels at the southwest corner of Cook Street (Cook) and , � � Frank Sina#ra Drive (Frank Sinatra). The applicant, Residence Inn, is �-- � requesting approval for two (2) free-standing monument signs. One � � si n identified as Si n "A" on the lan�s is located ad'acent to a g � g p � 1 , - driveway along Frank Sinatra. This sign will replace an existing Court ,ard Marriott monument si n. Si n "B" is ro osed alon -Cook Y : g g p p g � . for�the Residence Inn Marriott hotele, Both signs feature a similar contemporary style with offset rectangular fo�rms to vary the massing � . � of the sign cabinets. Both signs are 4'�6" tall, constructed from .,080" , _ � . . � � � � . . , G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Pag e 6 of 14� � , , � � � , �' ., � ', , ,'I� ,,�J� � �� ►RCHITECTURAL�REV�;��1 COMMISSION � , � . , MINUTES � � � April 9, 2019 � . . - , . � � gauge aluminurr�, half-inch push-thru acrylic letters and painted gray � and black. Both signs will be placed within an existing landscaped area. There are two (2) existing monument signs located at the two � . driveways along the Frank Sinatra frontage. The second monument � . sign is located at the westernrr�ost�,driveway along Frank Sinatra and . � lists both hotels. These monum�ents were approved around the time of the original development, however the current sign ordinance permits one (1) sign per street frontage. This proposal�will replace � � � one (1) of the signs. Staff would recomr�nend approval of the designs � as shown. However, with Sign "A" there are two (2) signs on that � frontage and it v►�ould be at the discretion of the Commission 'as to � � � how they would like to address this. This proposal doesn't specify � what will occur with Sign 2, which is the double-stacked monument , � sign on the westernmost entry along Frank Sinatra. Staff recommen�ds the applicant either remove the second sign�or replace - the sign with a small�directional sign that can be approved by staff. The Commission discussed the double,-stacked monument sign and , _ were concerned with how it didn't match the proposed signs. It was suggested that it be changed to match the proposed signs. MR. MCDONALD said Marriott has a new branding and in the future if _ ._ they change th�e older one it will be this new style. They will also be � , � , . changing their wall signage. , Commissioner Vuksic suggested they continue this item and have - . the applicant resubrnit a cohesive �package to include plans and �- design�for the second si n at the western'most ent alon Frank g rY g . Sinatra. He also pointed out that what they are proposing is nicer , than the existing and hopes the applicant will submit the changes. , He said what they originally proposed was more elegant and lighter . than the new design being reviewed. He said the buildings are warm which make the signs look like they are a different project. MR. � � � MCDONALD said the gray and black is part of the new branding. , � Commissioner Vuksic asked if they were doing something with the building color. MR. MCDONALD said at this time he was unaware if _ � any changes will be made. . � � , - , , . , � � . . � , . , . G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Pa e 7 of 14 � ' g ' � � . . ; . � , �; ' � . � � �4RCHITECTURAL RE`v�rtW COMMISSION� ��--�� MINIJTES � � . �� A ril 9, 20�19 p . , ACTI O N: � � Commissioner Larr,bell moved to continue Case No. SARC 19-0003 subject � to submitting a cohesive package to include plan and design for second sign , � � at the western Frank Sinatra Drive entry. Motion was seconde�d b � Y ; Commissioner Mclntosh and carried .by a 7-0 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Schrr,id,, Vuksic, and Var� Vliet voting YES. , . � � , � � . 6. CASE NO: SARC 19-0007 �� , � . . .APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SIGNTECH, Attn: �teve Terriaul, `� � .- 4444 Federal Building, San Diego, CA 92102 - � � . , NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT,: Consideration of a sign design review for a monument sign, wall signage and drive-thru . � ATM signage; Cfiase Bank. � � - - . . . LO CATI O N: 72-950 H i g hway 111 � � ZONE: P.C.-(3), S.P. ' ' , , _ Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a sign program forthe� � � � ` new Chase Bank on Highway 11�1 �to include four (4) wall signs, one . �. � (1) monument sign and signage for a drive-thru ATM. The wall signs , are proposed for each of the buil,ding's four (4) elevations. The signs . t � on the north, west, and south elevations face right-of-way or parking �� areas and the sign on the east elevation faces the.adjacent private property. The signs are internally illuminated with through-lit channel � � letters. The signs on the north and south elevations confor.m with the � - � maximum area permitted at 57.6 square-feet. However, on the east � � and west elevation it is slightly over, but through the sign program the Commission can approve an� exception for the additional 6 or so I � . ,. square feet if it enhances it and is in keeping with the�overall design. � � � � On the east elevation9 this sign does not face, public or private right- , . of-ways or parking �lots which is generally what is required for � � approval on� a frontage. �However, there is flexibility to allow the . eastern wall sign with the Commission's approval. The monument . ` sign proposed along Highway 111 i�s constructed of two (2) aluminum � � panels with a central accent strip and illuminated at night with push� � thru letters.,T'his conforms with all the requirements of the City9s sign ordinance. He said there aren't specific requirements for the drive- thru, however it is compatible with what is proposed for�the building. � This will be constructed from a solid piece of alurr�inum with push- � . � , ,_ � . � G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.do�X Page 8 of 14 �'� � l � � I � ARCHITECTURAL REV��,��J COMMISSION � ��'� MINUTES , , _ April 9, 2019 � ' J � through channel lette�rs and an illuminated roof-mounted Iogo. Staff � is recommending approval of the wall sign design subjectto reducing , � the area of the signs on the east and west elevation .of the main building and approve the signage forthe drive-thru ATM. St�aff would also recommend �arying the massing of the monument sign, and � include desirable elements like the illuminated�strip and high quality � - finish with the nickel-painted finish. _ The Commission discussed the projection of the sign on the east . e�levation, the identifying logo on top of the drive-thru ATM, the 10- - 12% increase of maxirr�um signage area on the east .and west elevations; and landscaping. � Commissioner Vuksic questioned the brightness of the signs. Mr. Melloni said there is a standard condition that all signs be installed � with a dimrr�er and inspected by the director within the first two weeks � � to determine if it is overly bright. If it is, the applicant will have to dim -- � it. � � �� Commissioner Mclntosh liked the monument si n and said it was . . . , g � clean, sophisticated and wasn't overly large at 4'-6". Commissioner � Vuksic agreed that it looks clean but compared to tlie building, which , . . is modern, he feels that the monument sign looks like it was pulled � � \ � off the shelfo Commissioner Mclntosh said if it was bigger it may be a concern to him. � � , - _ � . Commissioner Lambell made a motion ,to a rove and . , pp � ' � Commissioner Mclntosh made the second. Chair�Van Vliet asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Vuksic stated his ��' � concerns vuith approving this simple design and asked if this � � � - Commission, in the future, can defend,their decision on this type of � � � design when other �applicants request a simple design. The � . Comr�nissioners said it would be defendable with-the types of fini�shes . and elegance of the sign desig�n. � � � - ` ACTI O N: , - � � � Commissioner Lambell moved to� approve as presented. Motion was � seconded by Corr�missioner Mclntosh� and. carried by a 7-0 vote, with � Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe; Mclntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting � - YES�. � _ t, � � � � . , �. , ' � � , � G:\Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Page 9 of 14 . , . , , � . . �, , � - �, , � . ARCHITECTURAL RE`v,i�W COIVIMISSION '� -'� � . ) MINUTES �April 9, 2019 � , . . . , . B. Pr�eliminary Plans: , . 1 CAS E N O: S P 18-0002/P P 18-0009/TT'llll 37369 _ - � , ; • I �. . . APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DESERT WAVE VENTURES, LLC, � Attn: Doug Sheres�; P.O. Box 1.47, Solana Beach, CA�92075 � NATURE OF'� PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of�a � � recommendation to the Planning Corr�mission and City Council for approval �of a Specific Plan, Precise Plan, and�Tentative Tract Map . for "Desert Surf" — a 17 plus acre resort development inclusive of a 5.5 acre s�arf lagoon, surf� center, up to 350 hotel rooms and 88 � � � residential units at Desert Willow. � ` LOCATION� Desert Willow . . . . � ; � . _ , � , - ZONE: P.Ro-5 � . Commissioner Vuk�ic recused himself from this project and remained in the�room " as part of the design tearn. � r; . Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented for preliminary approval, . �� Dsrt Surf. This proposal includes a �specific plan which will require . review and approval by the City Council. He presented a PowerPoint � of the 17.8-acre site at Desert Willow. Phase 1 development includes � � a 5.5 acre surf lagoon, surf and visitor center, cafe, bar space, beach - pavilions, a pier, a two��story wave machine, and two (2) two-story � control towers. Phase 2 includes two (2) three-story hotel�s up,to 350 � r.00ms and 88 residential villas. He pointed out the surface parking , areas and a ramp that will lead to�subterranean parking, that will take place in Phase�1 and expanded in Phase 2. Architecture for Phase � 1 will be reviewed today and architecture for Phase 2 will return at a � later �date. He �passed around the materials board for the � � - Commission's review and described wh�ere the materials will be � placed. . � , � � The Commission will see things related to the environmental quality act, development standards, parking standards, and detailed landscape guidelines. To have� these guidel,ines in place as this .l develops out will help ensure that the architectural quality is carried �� ' out throughout the entire project area. If Phase 1 is recommended � � � for approval by this Commission, it will move onto the City Council. If , ; > . ' ��-� ' G:\Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Page .1� Of 1� . �, - � , • , . � , � , � � � i � ��, ARCHI�TECTURAL REV��;�,J COMMISSION ��-�� MI�NUTES � ,' _ April 9, 2019 �� :, approved, the applicant can move forwa,rd with the design packet for " Phase 1. Staff is recorr�mending approval. � � I MR. DOUG SHERES, Desert Wave Ventures, said along- with his � partners, John Luff�and Don Rad.ey, they are bringing this project to� �. Palm Desert. He said the Commission will hear a lot ab�out the . _, specific architecture, design, and features of this project. He shared � their vision and passion and what drives them to do this project. The �- � � wave park will provide an outlet and opportunity for surfing; not only , . to �surfers, but to .many other people who would otherwise.�not have � the opportunity. A�� pool like this allows the City to expand their . o.fferings and�amenities to tourists, visitors, and residents; providing � an opportunity that works all year round. Their vision is about much � more�than just a surfing pool, it's about an experience. They want a � pool that will complement their passion; surfing.�They want people to � feel like they've-come to a destination - not a concrete jungle. He ; hopes the City can see their vision and what this will to bring to the , � city. l . , . � � MR. SHERES introduced their team: Nicole Criste and Kelly�Clark, Terra Nova Consulting; James Bazua and Doug Henley, Altum � �� ' Engineering; John Vuksic, Prest-Vuksic Architects; �Ron Gregory and - - Jarvis Payne, RGA Landscape Architects; John Luff and Don Radey, � Desert Wave Ventures; Michele Devos, Douglas Wilson Companies; and William Dunkinson, Bar Architects. � � , ,, . � � MR. 1lVILLIAM D`UNKINSON architect described their ins iration , , p . , the design process, and identified key components of the design. He , � described three main things that formed their design process;.desert � � architecture, inside-outside architecture, and the surf culture. He � , - presented a PowerPoint on the project's architecture, site� design, - ' r ,and sustainability measures. H�e said Dsrt Surf is an� attempt to 1 � embody these three different inspirational categories into:a cohesive . � offering that will be a destination for global surf travelers, as well as � locals alike. � � � MR. RON GREGORY, RGA Landscape Architects, said workin on � g this 'project is exciting ,because it's an opportunity to create a � � wonderful environment that will be,_an extremely interesting place ,� , with landscape that creates an environment that people will enjoy � and appreciate. He said his team will be using a lot of iconic type , � � plants that are water efficient. s � . � - G:\Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Page 11 of 14 ' s � --. �� ' �. ,, , ARCHITECTURAL Rf��v�r'�W COMMISSION � �� MINUTES �v . . April 9, 2019 , , , , � MR:. JARVIS PAYNE, RGA Architects, said when they were first loo,king for inspiration fo�r this ro'ect, it vr�a�s desert communit and . p J , y, . � � ; � surf. They are skilled��and competent with desert and contemporary. landscape, but coming up�nrith a landsca e for surf was new to them. p , They found thei�r inspiration in. Baja, California, where the desert ,, meets the surf. ��Using that as a reference point, as well as the , project's architecture,, and materials, they developed a landscape . specific to Dsrt Wave. They have chosen a plant palette that will -- , J � celebrate the desert landscape to bring something very unique to the Coachella� Valley. � .' . � , . , . . , . . , The Commission and MR. DUNKINSON review ' . ed and discussed the screening of the roof-mounted equipment, the stainless steel screen - � on top of the north elevation, the ventilated� louvers, dri ed es, . p g � engineered timber posts, and the cladding on the metal roof of the ��, � � � wave machine. � � - � � Commissioner Mclntosh, asked if there will be any ni httime events , g � and if so, will lighting be addressed. MR. SHERES said they will run . � into the evening hours. MR. RYAN STENDELL, Director of - � Community Development, said this will have the same ro erties p p and restrictions as other I�ighting sources in the City: - � 1 Commissioner Lambell left at 2:30 p�:m. � . , � Commissioner Levin asked if CVWD has weighed in on this ro'ect. p J MS. NICOLE CRISTE, Terra Nova Consulting, said the water supply . ,. � - assessment is being processed. Terra Nova will be reducing golf course water-use and the net water demand will be lower than one hotel's water demand. Commissioner Levin and MS. CRISTE � � discussed the su f� from water wellsJ MS. CRISTE s ' pp y aid there are . - multiple options for wells�that haven't been decided on at this point. � , � � Commissioner McAuliffe asked if�the Phase 2 �develo ment will be p , this team. MR. SH�RES said this project will not be sold or parceled � , � off and his team will be working in conjunction with a hotel , � development group. Commissioner McAuliffe a�sked for the � ,.� approximate timetable for Phase 1 and�Phase 2. MR. SHERES said . hopefully they will be back in front of this Commission with the hotel � in a couple of months. Commissioner McAuliffe asked when Phase � 1 gets developed, will the area for Phase 2 be scra ed as a level � ad p p , � ,, � . G:\Planning\Janine JudyWRC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.do�X Page 12 of 14 . � . � � � 4 I^ _ `�� . ARCHITECI'URAL REV:��:��V COMMISSION ��-� MINUTES � April 9, 2019 , � � � �- and how soon can the City anticip.ate construction to start on the � - -hotel and villas and asked them� to address any gaps in that area. . � MR. SHERES said it was not clear at this point and will depend on � . , � �how quickly they can get back to this Commission with the hotels. � , _- � Commissioner Levin asked if they will be grading this project in a . _ single phase. MR. SHERES said he would like to but it depends on � the timin for the- hotel. Comrr,issioner Levin discussed the dirt g � - balance. MS. CRISTE said they have 100,000 yards of export on this � project arid they are discussing sites for import. � � Commissioner McAuliffe asked what other issues they were studying � � as part of the environmentals. MS. CRISTE said everything on the � � check list except agriculture and mineral resources. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if there were any vulnerabilities they are seeing that �� ' will have to be mitigated. MS. CRISTE said there are mitigation � . � measures in the EIR.for soil issues due to construction; a large excavation, i.�nder round arkin , li htin levels atthe propert lines, g p g g, g Y and a number of ineasures for traffic associated with special events. Comrnissioner McAuliffe and MR. DUNKINSON discussed the finished roof materia! on the surf center. Cor�nmissioner McAuliffe � ,� pointed out that it will be visible to a certain degree given the slope around the site.� MR. DUNKINSON said they did sight studies and they feel it will not be visible in any close proximity. Commissioner . �McAuliffe said the difficulty is when you get into the sloped roofs they end up being visible from a detailing standpoint. With whatever you �select up there it becomes part of the architecture and never ends up being a sealed condition. . , � , - Comm�issioner McAuliffe said the architecture presented is exceptionally well done and will be an asset to not only Palm Desert _ but to Coachella Valley as ,well. He loves the thin roof but was concerned with it because it seems impo,ssibly thin in many locations. . , �MR. DUNKINSON said this buildin in articular has a pretty � , g p aggressive roof on it and is intentional and ultimately they can deal � with that through �the thickness of the material. Commissioner , McAuliffe said if they need to fatten that up, that's okay just make � sure we're seeing it. V1/e see the impossible renderings upfront and � everybody gets excited; � then reality goes �sideways. This � Commission wants to see the finished product. 1 . , � 1 . ,, � r � G:\Planning\Janine Judy�ARC\1 Minutes�2019\190409min.docx Page 13 of 14 ARCHITECTURAL RE��W COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2019 ACTION: Commissioner Mclntosh moved to preliminarily approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Schmid, and Van Vliet voting YES, Vuksic abstaining and Lambell absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 2:55 p.m. ERIC CE A PRINCIP PLANNER SECRETARY 1 ` [ � t E�D�- JA f E JUD RDING SECRETARY c�aia��m9Wa�ma��eYwac�immmas�zo�evsoaosm�.ao�x Page 14 of 14