Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-23 ARC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT �'�.� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ` ;`,'��'� � ��"" ;�'� MINUTES ��� F TUESDAY, MARCH 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 Commissioner Jim Mclntosh Vice-Chair Karel Lambell Commissioner Allan Levin Commissioner Michael McAuliffe Commissioner John Vuksic Also Present: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Deputy Director of Development Services Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Deborah Glickman, Business Advocate Christina Canales, Engineering Assistant Melinda Gonzalez, Management Specialist I III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director of Development Services, 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 meeting of February 23, 2021 . Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Chair Van Vliet, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, the minutes were approved as presented. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: Mcintosh). 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.org/our-citv/committees-and- commissions/architectural-review-commission-information-center. A. FINAL DRAWINGS 1. CASE NO: MISC 21-0002 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a 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 Commissioner Vuksic advised the Commission one of his employees is the designer for this item. He recused himself due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item, noting it was brought before the Commission during the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting held February 23, 2021. Commissioner Levin expressed concern the proposed thinner wood would not fare well with sun exposure. In response, Mr. Swartz advised the City has a property maintenance ordinance which holds residents responsible for maintaining their properties. He noted, monitoring the property's carport for wear and tear could be a condition of approval. Vice Chair Lambell, requested monitoring of the carport, as recommended by staff, be listed as a condition of approval. Applicant advised the Commission the trellis sections span less than five feet to help prevent warping. Commissioner McAuliffe asked how the beams will be secured. Applicant replied they will be secured by 835 hangars or lag screws, whichever their engineer recommends. Commissioner McAuliffe stated the exposed hanger hardware will be unsightly and may also be hard to fasten with such a tight space, to which the applicant agreed. Applicant stated the use of lag screws is the preferred option. In response to inquiry by Commissioner McAuliffe, applicant advised a small portion of the Ficus hedge will be removed to install the carport but will be replaced after installation. Commissioner McAuliffe thanked the applicant for the clarification and noted he felt the Ficus should remain as the removal of this hedge would change the overall character of the property. 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Vice Chair Lambell, and a 4-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. MISC 21-0002, is approved subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the Commission; 2) Resident will provide annual maintenance to the carport to deter warping and deterioration of the wood; and 3) Galvanized metal hanger hardware should not be exposed, otherwise alternative options should be explored. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet; NOES: None; ABSENT; Vuksic, Mclntosh). 2. 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 Vuksic returned to the meeting. Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Commissioner Vuksic observed with the new design the base would look better closer to the ground. Chair Van Vliet concurred adding the base is too tall and does not appear grounded. Mr. Melloni advised the Commission decreasing the height of the base could be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Vuksic commented the base should just hover over the ground approximately six inches. Vice Chair Lambell commented the lettering on the signs placed above the drive- thru is off centered and asked that the words be aligned. Upon a motion by Chair Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21-0003, is approved subject to the following: 1) Consider comments provided by the Commission; 2) Sign base should be lowered to six inches from grade; and 3) Lettering on signs located above the drive-thru area should align. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe. Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Mclntosh). 3. 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 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 Assistant Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item, noting it was brought before the Commission during the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting held February 23, 2021. Commissioner Levin commented the stone veneer on the leftmost pier on the rear elevation, does not cover the neutral pier. Commissioner Vuksic agreed the stone material should extend to cover the pier, matching the pier to the right. Mr. Melloni inquired as to whether the applicant and representative of EI Paseo Village anticipate any issues with conditioning the addition of the stone material to cover the pier, to which they replied they did not foresee any issues, but confirmation would need to be sought from Randy Tambourine, Senior Tenant Coordinator for The Gardens on EI Paseo. Commissioner Vuksic observed the eyebrow on the rear elevation does not have a break at the pier, though the storefront eyebrow does. He advised the rear eyebrow should be separated at the pier to be consistent with the storefront eyebrow. Commissioner Vuksic inquired about increasing the depth of the stone pier on the storefront so the cornice of the adjoining tenant ends into the pier and increases the depth between the stone piers and wood cladding. The applicant advised staff recommended increasing the depth six inches; this option would allow for the adjoining cornice to end into the pier. Commissioner Vuksic expressed concern that the wood cap extends back approximately two feet and then ends abruptly giving the impression of a fake front and recommended it be extended several feet back until it gives the appearance of a three dimensional building. He further recommended to the applicant to consider how the change to the pier will impact the wood cap. The applicant noted they would likely use a stone cap for the extended stone pier, to which Commissioner Vuksic replied they might consider extending the wood cap instead, adding they should research the different options available. The applicant expressed concern the extension of the piers may be too rugged and overwhelming. Commissioner McAuliffe commented unlike the photos the applicant shared of other constructed Sundance stores, the EI Paseo design is taking over the whole pier giving the applicant more responsibility to provide three dimensionality. Commissioner McAuliffe commented the extension of the horizontal canopy and the wood cornice should be proportionate to the movement of the stone pier. Upon a motion by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. MISC 20-0008, is approved subject to the following: 1) Revise the exterior elevations per comments provided by the Commission; 2) If permitted, the leftmost pier on the rear elevation should be fully clad with stone veneer; 3) Rear eyebrow should be separated at the pier to remain consistent with the front eyebrow; 4) Increase the projection of the storefront piers an additional 6 inches so the overall projection is 12 inches; 5) Additional options should be explored for the wood cap; and 6) The wood cornice and parapet need to extend back further on the sides to provide the appearance of a three dimensional building. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Mclntosh). 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO: GPA/TfM/PP21-0001 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to approval of a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and a Precise Pla� (GPAlTTM/PP21-0001) for a 63-unit subdivision. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GHA Montage P.D.. LLC / GHA Communities, 30-875 Date Palm Drive, Suite C-2, Cathedral City, CA 92234 LOCATION: APN's 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, Intersection of Julie Dr. and Shepard Lane ZONE: PR-20 Deputy Director of Development Services, Eric Ceja, presented the item. The applicant gave a presentation which provided further details of their plans. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Levin, the applicant confirmed the homes will be governed by a Home Owner's Association (HOA) who will continue maintenance of the landscape for the property. Vice Chair Lambell inquired about the size of the trees proposed in the plan and advised the trees used will need to be an appropriate size to withstand the high winds that are experienced in this area. In response, the applicant stated the presence of high winds were considered during the plant selection and they will continue to be mindful of the high winds for the final plant selection. Vice Chair Lambell asked about the brick cap proposed for the perimeter wall, adding that she did not think it was a good option and should consider other alternatives. Applicant advised the brick cap image was provided as an option for the presentation, however, they are still exploring options for the material which will be used to cap the perimeter wall. Commissioner Vuksic complimented the applicant for their landscaping plan. He further commented the homes which have street exposed side elevations should have an enhanced feature. Commissioner Vuksic stated the gable roof for the Spanish "Q" plan one option has a wide span and discouraged building two of this model side by side. Commissioner McAuliffe complimented the design team for the quality of the project. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Levin, Mr. Ceja stated pilasters will be used along the perimeter wall facing Portola Avenue where each property line meets. The applicant requested the Commissions preference for the use of one or two blocks for the pilasters. Commissioner Vuksic commented he preferred the placement of the pilasters at the property line and recommended the use of two blocks so it appears purposefully designed. The applicant agreed noting this will also add some dimensionality. In response to the applicant's inquiry, Commissioner McAuliffe stated keeping the columns flush would be acceptable. Commissioner Vuksic recommended the wall step at the pilaster versus in between pilasters. Applicant agreed with the recommendation and stated they would be mindful of this request. 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 Commissioner Vuksic expanded on a previous comment adding the gable roof option should not be built where the side elevation is street exposed. Discussion on options to consider that would enhance the side elevation ensued which concluded with the applicants agreement to add an enhancement feature to the side elevation, providing paRicular attention to Lot 56, and at the request of Vice Chair Lambell. Lot 63 as well. Upon a motion by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. GPA/TTM/PP21- 0001 is approved, subject to the following: 1) Consider comments provided by the Commission 2) Plant selection should be durable enough to withstand high winds; 3) Applicant should consider alternative options for the perimeter wall cap; 4) An enhanced feature should be added to homes which have street exposed side elevations; 5) The Spanish "Q" plan one option should not be built side by side; and 6) An enhanced feature should be added to a street exposed side elevation for the Spanish "Q" plan one option, with particular attention to Lots 56 and 63. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Mclntosh). 2. CASE NO: PP 21-0004 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of PP 21-0004 for a 270-unit apartment project. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Pacific West Communities, Inc., 430 East State Street, Suite 100, Eagle, ID 83616 LOCATION: APN 694-310-006, Southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway ZONE: PR-20 Deputy Director of Development Services, Eric Ceja, presented this item. The applicant gave a presentation which provided further details of their plans. Commissioner Levin expressed concern for the lack of parking for the pool amenity noting tenants have no choice but to walk. Applicant advised this was taken into consideration which is why they focused on creating pleasant pedestrian walkways throughout the project and to the amenities on the property. Commissioner Levin advised tenants would most likely use the pool during the summer which provides extreme weather and felt parking spots should be made available for tenants that are housed further from the amenities. Vice Chair Lambell agreed with Commissioner Levin's comments. Mr. Ceja commented the addition of parking in this area could affect the site plan and may impact the landscaping space. Chair Van Vliet asserted the landscaping appeared sparse considering the height of the proposed buildings. Applicant shared the full landscaping plan and advised the Commission the landscaping along Gerald Ford was designed to reflect the landscaping already established in the area and added the remainder of the property is generously landscaped. 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 Commissioner Levin inquired about the parapets and whether they will screen the mechanical equipment on the roof, to which the applicant responded the parapets will be used to screen the equipment and will be six feet in height. Upon request by staff, applicant did not have a plan readily available to share which confirmed this information but did reference their schematic roof plan which noted "Roof Equip screened by building parapet," and added it is their firm's standard regardless of the City's requirement. Commissioner Vuksic expressed concern about the following items: the parapets are continuous around the building with no break in the roof line; the ins and outs of the plan are carried up two to three stories almost like a high rise in design with no differentiation; and the buildings should have more articulation to assist with breaking down the large masses. In response to comment provided by Vice Chair Lambell, applicant advised the three story buildings facing the Sheriff's Station are on a grade which is zero (0) to fifteen (15) feet below grade giving the appearance of a shorter building. Commissioner McAuliffe agreed with Commissioner Vuksic's comments and further commented the fence panels facing Gerald Ford which sit flush with the outer part of the buildings should be pushed approximately five (5) feet to the interior of the project to provide a better presentation and to avoid a long flat wall. Commissioner McAuliffe observed the uniformity of the buildings including the window patterns and the stratification of the layers do not provide enough visual cues which would identify this as a housing project. Commissioner McAuliffe further commented small refinements to the design could take it in a more residential direction. Vice Chair Lambell asserted the exterior doors are not easily identifiable to which applicant stated they would consider options to make them more pronounced. After inquiring about the placement of utility equipment Commissioner Levin asked the applicant to consider whether space for the needed equipment has been adequately accommodated for. Both Commissioner Levin and Vice Chair Lambell remarked they inquire about the placement of utility equipment to avoid deviation from the approved architectural design to accommodate more space that may be needed for utility equipment as plans progress. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 21-0004 is continued subject to the following: 1) Consider comments provided by the Commission; 2) Consider the addition of parking spaces for the pool amenity; 3) Parapet should be of adequate height to screen all mechanical equipment; 4) Consider other options for the parapet design which allow a break in the roof line and vertical plane; 5) Explore design options which allow for deviation of the architectural design as it is carried up the stories of the buildings; 6) More articulation should be added to assist with breaking up the large mass of the buildings; and 7) The fence pa�els which face Gerald Ford should be pushed approximately five (5) feet to the interior of the project. (AYES: Lambell, Levin. McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Mclntosh). 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 C. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. CASE NOS: PP 20-0010/TPM 38033 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL 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 Deputy Director of Development Services, Eric Ceja, excused himself at 3:53 p.m. for the remainder of the meeting due to a conflicting appointment. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item, noting it was brought before the Commission during the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meeting held February 23, 2021. The applicant also gave a presentation which provided further details of their plans. Commissioner Vuksic commented the design appears somewhat antiquated specifically noting the parapet with the cornice detail with a mansard like tiled roof that butts into them; typical fascia detail with no differentiation in the height; and an almost continuous parapet. He further expressed concern regarding the rear elevation which features a long roof line with another below it above the garages, which terminates awkwardly at the ends. Commissioner Vuksic also pointed out the 2x6 or 2x8 band located just above the garage, commenting he felt these types of details throughout the design were not acceptable. Commissioner Vuksic reiterated his concern with multiple features of the design including, but not limited to, the long continuous features of the parapet, cornice detail, tiled roof, and eaves; awkward termination of some of features; visibility of the tower top openings; and repetitive stone columns with a gable feature at the top. Commissioner McAuliffe agreed with Commissioner Vuksic's observations adding he felt the pool house was the applicant's strongest building, explaining this design is "not trying too hard" and is resolved on all four sides of the building. Commissioner McAuliffe expressed this is what needs to be considered for the main buildings, adding the elevations should be thoughtfully resolved. He further commented the upper and lower roof elements on the front and rear elevations create a stratified design and asked the applicant to consider breaking it up or incorporating different lengths. He also reiterated the importance of resolving the roof terminations and suggested the applicant reassess the stone vertical columns, specifically the gable roof element atop the stone columns which he felt may be unnecessary. He encouraged the applicant to reexamine the finishing decisions, giving the example of the stone on the towers which stop at the first story and terminate on an outside corner of the building. Commissioner McAuliffe remarked the towers and the parapet should have some variation. He further remarked the front elevation does not give the impression of four units, nor do the two end units have their own identity and suggested the applicant add small visual cues which provide differentiation between the four units. 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2021 In response to inquiry by Commissioner Levin, the applicant confirmed each unit is set up with its own utility services and a space to house the utility meters for the units has been established. When questioned by Commissioner Levin about the placement of the water meters, the applicant did not have a definitive answer. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant to be thoughtful of the placement for the meters. No formal action was taken on this item as it was brought forth solely for commissioner's comments to the applicant. VI. COMMENTS Vice Chair Lambell asserted her concerns regarding the length of the meetings due to the number of agenda items and the complexity of the cases being presented. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, advised the Commission City staff is mindful of the time required for the meetings and are currently working toward a solution with consideration to the needs of the Commission and availability of staff. Chair Van Vliet voiced his agreement with Vice Chair Lambell. Commissioner Levin stated after the meeting held between the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission he is hesitant about approving projects such as the ones just presented. Brief comments regarding concerns noted during the meeting for some of the presented projects where exchanged. Commissioner Vuksic provided the Commission with a summary of the recent Art in Public Places meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT With the Architectural Review Commission concurrence, Chair Van Vliet adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. � �� Eric Ceja, S etary �tl.:.��a �-tQnU�, Melinda Gonzalez, Recording retary 9