The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-02-23 ARC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT �'=,�'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION �';�'� ��., r,� ,,,, � i MINUTES •'v�. . TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2021 — 12:30 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Van Vliet called the meeting to order at 12:33 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Chris Van Vliet Vice-Chair Karel Lambell joined meeting at 12:47 p.m. Commissioner Allan Levin Commissioner Michael McAuliffe Commissioner Jim Mclntosh left meeting at 1:57 p.m. Commissioner John Vuksic Also Present: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Russell Grance, Director of Building & Safety Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Wayne Olson, Senior Development Analyst Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II � Melinda Gonzalez, Management Specialist I III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner, Eric Ceja, advised the Commission no comments or inquiries were received by email or voicemail, prior to the meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting of January 12, 2021. Rec: Approve as presented. CITY OF PALM DESERT �'=,�'� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION �';�'� ��., r,� ,,,, � i MINUTES •'v�. . TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2021 — 12:30 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Van Vliet called the meeting to order at 12:33 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Chris Van Vliet Vice-Chair Karel Lambell joined meeting at 12:47 p.m. Commissioner Allan Levin Commissioner Michael McAuliffe Commissioner Jim Mclntosh left meeting at 1:57 p.m. Commissioner John Vuksic Also Present: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Russell Grance, Director of Building & Safety Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Wayne Olson, Senior Development Analyst Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II � Melinda Gonzalez, Management Specialist I III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Principal Planner, Eric Ceja, advised the Commission no comments or inquiries were received by email or voicemail, prior to the meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting of January 12, 2021. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, the minutes were approved with correction comments provided by Commissioner Levin. (AYES: Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: Lambell). V. CASES It should be noted, discussion on the following items can be viewed in their entirety through audio or video by visiting the Architectural Review Commission Information Center website at, https://www.citvofpalmdesert.orq/our-citv/committees-and- commissions/architectural-review-commission-information-center. A. FINAL DRAWINGS 1. CASE NO: MISC 21-0001 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request for a fa�ade enhancement and minor addition to the existing Leeds and Sons building on EI Paseo. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PVG Architects, 44530 San Pablo Ave, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 LOCATION: 73670 EI Paseo ZONE: DO Mr. Ceja advised the Commission at this time Commissioner Vuksic would be recused from this item. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item. Commissioner Van Vliet inquired about height issues for the Rolex sign. Mr. Swartz replied the height is within the requirements. Commissioner Levin inquired about the draining for the overhead located at the stores entryway. The applicant advised a cricket will be created for the overhead which will connect to existing overflow pipes that flow to underground drainage. Upon a motion by Commissioner McAuliffe, seconded by Commissioner Mclntosh, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, the request for a fa�ade enhancement and minor addition for Case No. MISC 21-0001 was approved as presented. (AYES: Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and I Lambell; NOES: None; ABSENT: Vuksic). 2. CASE NO: MISC 21-0002 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a I request for an exception for a new carport 20 feet from back of curb. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Josh and Stefanie Paquette LOCATION: 74154 Peppergrass Street ZONE: R1 ' 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 Commissioner Vuksic rejoined the meeting. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz presented the item. Commissioner Levin expressed concern that the carport does not qualify as such, with five by seven feet of space between the trellises, which does not provide much cover. Commissioner Mclntosh agreed it was pushing the limit to be considered a carport. Discussion ensued on this matter, Vice Chair Lambell inquired about the possibility of the homeowners placing something over the trellises for shade which could degrade from exposure to the elements, becoming unsightly. She added the applicant should consider closer spacing on the trellises. Commissioner McAuliffe inquired about examples of other similar carports in the City and recommended they make it a roof which provides shade for vehicles or consider a waiver for the carport requirement. Chair Van Vliet observed the carport appears too massive. Considering the size of the lumber, Chair Van Vliet recommended the use of some type of laminated wood. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. MISC 21-0002, is continued and subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the Commission; 2) Consider using Laminated Wood; 3) The spacing between the wooden slats needs to be filled in, or consider installing a solid roof top; 4) Resubmit Plan. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 3. CASE NO: SARC 21-0002 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request to reface the existing monument sign for Life Storage. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Swain Sign Inc., 1384 E. Fifth Street, Ontario, CA 91764 LOCATION: 39700 Garand Lane ZONE: PG2, FCOZ Commissioner Levin informed the commission he currently rents a unit at Life Storage. He recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni presented the item. Mr. Melloni advised staff is recommending approval with a request that the applicant work with staff to replace missing landscape. Upon a motion by Chair Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Mclntosh, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21-0002 is approved, subject to the following: 1) Applicant will review landscape with City staff. (AYES: Lambell, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Levin). 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 4. CASE NO: SARC 21-0003 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request to replace a monument sign for Bank of America. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Empire Sign and Crane Service, 1500 W. Embassy Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 72820 EI Paseo ZONE: D Commissioner Levin returned to the meeting. Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Commissioner Mclntosh commented the design feels temporary and does not embody the idea of a monument. Commissioner Vuksic agreed, noting the existing base does not work well with the proposed sign design. Commissioner Mclntosh expressed concern that the sign has no association to the existing building's architectural design. Vice Chair Lambell requested a visual of the proposed design to get a better sense of how the sign relates to the building. Commissioner McAuliffe observed the base is stucco and imprecise whereas the sign is aluminum and precise; when put together is does not appear to relate well with each other. Vice Chair Lambell noted there could be a potential maintenance issue as the open design allows for the collection of debris between the sign panels. Chair Van Vliet addressed the applicant, Ana Weber with Empire Sign and Crane, and inquired as to whether she had enough design comments from the commission, to which she replied affirmatively. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21-0003, is continued subject to the following 1) Consider comments provided by the Commission; and 2) Resubmit Plan. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 5. CASE NO: SARC 21-0004 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request to replace a monument sign for St. John's Lutheran Church. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Best Signs Inc., 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 LOCATION: 42695 Washington Street ZONE: OP Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Mr. Melloni shared St. John's Lutheran Church currently has a reader board which is no longer permitted under the current ordinance code and will be replaced with a new monument sign which meets code requirements. Staff is recommending approval as proposed. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Mclntosh, Jim Cross with Best Signs, provided additional information regarding the lighting for the sign. Mr. Cross also noted there is a changeable insert panel on the sign should the need arise to change the name on the sign. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21-0004, is approved as presented. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 6. CASE NO: MISC 20-0008 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request for a fa�ade modification for Sundance, a new clothing retail store. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Sundance, 3865 West 2400 South. Salt Lake City, UT 84210 LOCATION: 73425 EI Paseo #110 ZONE: DO Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni, presented this item. Vice Chair Lambell, observed the fa�ade modification will include a large amount of reclaimed wood and expressed concern as to how well this material will weather against the heat. Applicant advised Sundance has a maintenance program which includes resealing the storefront annually. Commissioner Mclntosh commented the neutrality of the existing building is lost with the fa�ade modification as proposed. He further commented the stone veneer ending mid pier does not provide a good transition and negatively impacts the overall continuity of the existing building's character. Commissioner Mclntosh observed the proposed modification ending at the existing fascia does not transition well and offered the consideration of braking the line of the roof to provide separation from the other portions of the existing building. In response to concern brought forth by commissioners regarding the right side store front, City staff advised they have a good working relationship and communication with the property owner and do not anticipate any issues working with them to consider the concerns and comments offered by the commission. Commissioner Levin observed the stone veneer columns are of varying widths. Commissioner Vuksic stated he anticipates the widths of the columns will be addressed with the applicanYs consideration of how the columns and the neutral piers will transition more organically, but noted there should be some order to the columns. Upon a motion by Commissioner Mclntosh, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. MISC 20-0008, is continued subject to the following: 1) Consider comments provided by the Commission; 2) Maintenance for the reclaimed wood must be done no less than once a year; 3) Neutrality of piers should be maintained; 4) Applicant will work , with property owner on right side store front; 5) Work on transition of roof line into existing fascia and 6) Widths of columns should be similar. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO: PP 21-0003 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request to construct a 1 ,700-square-foot addition for a design showroom for H3K Design. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: H3K Design, 501 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92264 LOCATION: 74180 Highway 111 ZONE: DO Commissioner Mclntosh, excused himself at 1:57 p.m. for the remainder of the meeting due to a conflicting appointment. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item. Commissioner Levin inquired about access to the trash enclosure which was located next to a handicap accessible parking spot. In response, Kevin, with H3K stated Burrtec approved the layout of the space. Commissioner Vuksic inquired about ADA access to the trash enclosure and told the applicant they may need to adjust their layout to meet ADA requirements. Commissioner Vuksic observed the east side of the building was a blank wall and inquired about whether the lines translate to each other on all sides of the building. He encouraged the applicant to consider the line work on the east side building to tie it in to the other sides. Commissioner Vuksic asked that the details on the line work be included in the applicanYs final construction documents. Commissioner Vuksic commented the parapets need to overlap a foot or more onto the existing building to prevent the end of a parapet being exposed and to have good interlocking between the buildings. Chair Van Vliet commented the new addition is only six inches higher than the existing building and feels it needs to be raised a foot or more above, to which Commissioner Vuksic agreed. Commissioner Vuksic stated the joints in the plaster need to be consistent around all three sides of the addition and there must be some type of design with plaster joints on the east fa�ade. Upon a motion by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 21-0003, is approved, subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the Commission; 2) Information for the line work on the east side of the building must be included in the final construction documents: 3) Parapet should overlap onto existing building; and 4) New addition needs to be a foot or more higher than the existing building. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: I None; ABSENT; Mclntosh). 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 2. CASE NO: PP 20-0005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request to construct a new two-story, four-unit apartment complex. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Lindquist Development, PO Box 42135, Portland, OR 97242 LOCATION: 74425 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-3 Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Vice Chair Lambell inquired about roof access, noting it needs to be included if it has not already been considered. She further commented surface mounted drain spouts are generally disliked and felt they should be built inside the structure. Commissioner Levin inquired about access to get to parking spaces in the back of the building, particularly in inclement weather as well as potential parking restrictions for overflow parking. Commissioner Levin reintroduced discussion on roof access noting it may not be necessary as there are no roof mounted utilities. In response to inquiry regarding solar requirements, Director of Building and Safety, Russell Grance, stated based on the applicanYs design they may be required to have the roof "solar ready" or possibly "solar provided." Commissioner Vuksic noted several items of concern including, lack of articulation in the building; lack in depth for the windows and; the roof pitch is too steep. Commissioner McAuliffe requested applicants provide a visual which indicates the placement of utility items, trash enclosures and mailboxes to prevent these items from being placed in an undesirable location. Chair Van Vliet commented there may be no need for the surface mounted gutters considering the pitch in the roof and the roof's gutter. Vice Chair Lambell advised the applicant to consider how the elevated landscape will be watered and maintained. She also reiterated the need for the window recesses to have more depth to mitigate the suns exposure in the absent of an awning or some type of coverage. Commissioner McAuliffe noted the width for the drive aisle behind the parking area appears to be short on clearance, typically needing a minimum of 24 feet. He encouraged the applicant to speak with their engineer and the fire marshal to ensure this clearance meets requirements. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 20-0005, is continued and subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the Commission; 2) Recessed windows need more depth; 3) Lower roof pitch; 4) Landscaping revision, particularly considering elevated landscaping; 5) Meet solar requirements; 6) Removal of surface mounted drain spouts; 7) Iron rod wall revised to solid block wall; 8) Addition of articulation architecture, avoiding landscape features on building; and 9) Resubmit Plan. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Mdntosh). 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 C. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. CASE NOS: PP 20-0010/TPM 38033 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Receive conceptual comments on the project architecture for 48 units. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Desert Luxury Apartments, 2755 S. Nellis Boulevard, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89121 LOCATION: 36000 Shepherd Lane ZONE: PR-5 Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item. Commissioner Levin requested clarification as to whether the units were apartments or condominiums. The developer replied they will be rented as an apartment but will be built as condominiums. In response to the applicant stating utility equipment will be located on the outside of the building and screened by landscape, Commissioner Levin advised landscape is not an appropriate use for screening. Vice Chair Lambell requested the applicant identify the roof material on the renderings as well as the location for roof top equipment which could impact the architecture. She further commented the window recesses need more depth to assist with mitigating sun exposure. Chair Van Vliet observed the parapet will need to be raised to cover the roof top equipment to approximately five feet. He further observed several sides of the building appear flat and need some architecture and articulation added to the walls. Commissioner Vuksic commented a metal roof may be more appropriate than a tiled roof given the modern design of the building. He further commented looking at the front design of the building there is too much going on but not much when looking at all other sides. Commissioner Vuksic added the brick wainscot is not adequate architecture and noted the eyebrow did not enhance the design. He further reiterated the need for additional articulation and architecture for the design. Commissioner McAuliffe concurred with Commissioner Vuksic's comments and added the applicant should review the materials they are using, noting the brick element is rarely used in the area. He further observed there is minimal to no landscaping to soften the look of the front side of the central units and suggested revisiting this area of the plan. Commissioner Levin stated applicant should revisit the pool house design and possibly add windows. Commissioner Vuksic added there needs to be more articulation to the architecture of the pool house and noted windows may not be needed but if added above the doors may help with articulation. No formal action was taken on this item as it was brought forth solely for commissioner's comments to the applicant. 2. Training on Conflicts of Interest by Assistant City Attorney Craig Hayes. Principal Planner, Eric Ceja, introduced Assistant City Attorney, Craig Hayes, and advised the Commission attorney Hayes would reacquaint commissioners with policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest. Attorney Hayes provided the presentation and answered questions posed by commissioners. 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FEBRAURY 23, 2021 VI. COMMENTS Principal Planner, Eric Ceja, advised commissioners the next regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission will be cancelled. However, a study session between the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission will be held on the same date and time, March 9, 2021 at 12:30 p.m. VII. ADJOURNMENT I With the Architectural Review Commission concurrence, Chair Van Vliet adjourned the meeting at 4:09 p.m. �; � � Eric Ceja, Se ret ry �� ,;r�da ��.��_a.(�-� � Melinda Gonzalez, Recording Secr ary 9