Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-27 ARC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT ��'�:� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION /ry'!� ��� MINUTES � ^° Y �..� �.` TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2021 — 12:30 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Van Vliet called the meeting to order at 12:34 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 4 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 3 1 Allan Levin X 4 Michael McAuliffe X 4 Jim Mclntosh joined the meeting at 12:38 p.m. X 3 1 John Vuksic X 4 Also Present: Eric Ceja, Deputy Director of Development Services Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Associate Planner Wayne Olson, Senior Development Analyst Christina Canales, Land Development Technician Melinda Gonzalez, Management Specialist I III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director of Development Services, Eric Ceja, advised the Commission there were no comments or inquiries received by voicemail prior to the meeting. One email comment was received which will be read into the record during the appropriate agenda item. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of March 23, 2021. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 Rec: Approve as presented. 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 with corrections. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: Mclntosh). 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: SARC 21-0005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a request to construct a monument sign for Renova at the corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane East. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Best Signs Inc., Palm Springs. CA 92264 LOCATION: 41555 Cook Street ZONE: SI Commissioner Vuksic advised the Commission this applicant is a client and recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item. Brief discussion on the item ensued. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21- 0005, was approved as presented. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Van Vliet; NOES: None; ABSENT Vuksic). 2. CASE NO: SARC 21-0006 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a request to add three wall signs and to construct a monument sign for the Holiday Inn Express Hotel along Technology Drive. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Swain Sign Inc., Ontario, CA 91764 LOCATION: 74777 Technology Drive ZONE: PC-2 Commissioner Vuksic advised the Commission this applicant is a client and recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item. Brief discussion on the item ensued. Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21-0006, was approved as presented. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAulifte, Mcintosh, and Van Vliet; NOES: None; ABSENT: Vuksic). 3. CASE NO: SARC 21-0007 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a request to construct a monument sign for Revel at the property's entrance along Country Club Drive. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Outdoor Dimensions, LLC, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 74300 Country Club Drive ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Vuksic rejoined the meeting. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item. Chair Van Vliet commented the cinder block base should be plastered. Vice Chair Lambell stated the cinder block should be stucco and match the existing buildings architecture and material. Commissioner Vuksic observed the renderings and the actual dimensions are different. He stated the design in the rendering looked better and recommended they modify the dimensions to match the rendering. Commissioner Vuksic commented the joint lines on the monument should be recessed to match the existing buildings and the horizontal joint line should continue around the sign. Upon a motion by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Chair Van Vliet, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SARC 21-0007, was approved subject to the following: 1) The monument sign base should be stucco and painted to match the existing building; 2) Applicant will determine the material for the adjacent screen wall and ensure it matches the monument sign; 3) The joint lines on the sign should be recessed to match the joint lines of the existing building; 4) The horizontal joint line should continue around the sign. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 4. CASE NO: MISC 21-0007 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a 20% reduction in combined side yard setback requirement for a property in the R-1 Zone to accommodate the construction of a casita and room addition to an existing single-family residence. 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Igor Filipovic, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 LOCATION: 72630 Lotus Court ZONE: R-1, 10,000 Associate Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Brief discussion ensued on this item. Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. MISC 21-0007, was approved as presented. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet, Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 5. CASE NO: RV 21-0001 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request to park a horse trailer in the rear yard of a single-family property located in the Residential Estate zoning district. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Marc Gerhardt, 77630 Delaware Place, Palm Desert, CA 92211 LOCATION: 77630 Delaware Place ZONE: RE Associate Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Chair Van Vliet stated he felt the trailer should not be placed in the proposed area or on-site until it can be fully screened. In response to inquiry by Commissioner McAuliffe, Mr. Melloni advised there are no height restrictions for landscaping and in instances such as this, height is encouraged to appropriately screen the trailer or other vehicles since block walls are limited to six feet. Commissioner McAuliffe agreed with Chair Van VlieYs statement that the trailer should not be on-site until it can be fully screened. He further remarked purchasing larger landscaping is also an option for the applicant if they wanted to expedite the process. In response to comment by Commissioner Levin, Mr. Melloni confirmed the landscape screening would need to be provided for the east side of the property where the rear side of the trailer is visible. Mr. Levin voiced his agreement with Chair Van Vliet as well, the trailer should not be placed in the proposed area until screening is in place. Vice Chair Lambell inquired about the owner's decision to place the trailer in the proposed area. She observed there are other locations on the one acre property where the trailer could be placed which would be less intrusive to the neighbors. Vice Chair Lambell felt this was not an appropriate placement for the trailer. She further stated concern about relying on landscaping for screening, pointing out the photos provided already show distressed landscaping. Vice Chair Lambell concurred the trailer should not be on-site until screening can be provided. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 In response to inquiry by Commissioner Vuksic, staff confirmed the proposed placement is in compliance with code requirements and is a permissible location. Commission Vuksic asked staff how compliance is monitored and what happens should the landscaping die or be cut down and it is no longer in compliance. Mr. Melloni advised the City's Code Compliance Division would respond to code violations and the owner could potentially have his RV permit revoked. The owner would be responsible for bringing the landscape back into compliance or remove the RV from the location. Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Vuksic, staff advised should the property fall out of compliance, there are a series of violation citations and fines, including a lien on the property and revocation of the RV permit, which the owner could be subject to. Upon a motion by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Vice Chair Lambell, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. RV 21-0001 , was approved subject to the following: 1) Landscape screening must be of appropriate growth to fully screen trailer; 2) Applicant should consider other location options which may be less intrusive to the neighbors; 3) Trailer should be removed from the property until screening of the appropriate height has been provided and approved by City staff. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; Mclntosh). B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. 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 Associate Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Mr. Melloni noted this item was brought before the Commission at the Architectural Review Commission meeting held March 23, 2021 . Chair Van Vliet commented there should be more depth for the parapet returns as well as variation on the parapet heights. He observed the roof plan does not include specific height dimensions for the parapet and without complete information it is hard to determine what is being proposed. Commissioner Mclntosh asserted six inch to twelve inch reliefs do not break up the massing of the buildings enough and noted it was difficult to assess without a more detailed roof plan. Commissioner McAuliffe complimented the applicant for the added modifications to the exterior elevations, including the one, two and three- 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 story elements which help break up the patterns, in addition to the stair and entry towers which are easily identitiable, adding these revisions are all a step in the right direction. Commissioner McAuliffe expressed concern regarding the proposed depths, offsets and returns, explaining if these items are not deep enough and you can see the ends, it will visually flatten out the building. He recommended doubling or tripling the depths to help mitigate this concern. Commissioner McAuliffe also advised the applicant to consider whether the selected color palette with hold up over time. Commissioner Levin asserted he did not feel the parking was appropriate for buildings six and nine. The applicant acknowledged there is a small walk to the parking lot for these buildings but this was a small concession that was necessary to allow for the maximum beneficial use of the land and to fulfill all the other requirements for the project including revisions requested by the Commission. The applicant noted this development will assist with helping the City meet their assigned Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals. Upon request by Commissioner Levin, the applicant advised they did not have a revised site plan which showed the revision to building nine and the club house. Vice Chair Lambell commented she did not feel there was a "sense of arrival" to the building locations and did not have clear markings to identify the different buildings, to which the applicant stated they could add directional signage to alleviate this concern. Commissioner Vuksic acknowledged the applicanYs efforts to break up the buildings but felt it still had an institutional feel. He expressed disconcertment that the buildings still reflected one footprint repeated over several stories, like a high rise. He stated there should be some differentiation between the different stories. The applicant pointed out elements to the interior of the building that were added to help mitigate this concern to which Commissioner Vuksic responded were inadequate and used the revision to the points of entry as an example of a weak revision. He also commented on the color coding for the buildings stating it is not an acceptable method for differentiating the buildings. Commissioner Vuksic expanded on comments from the other commissioners regarding the parapet stating it appeared monolithic and needed to be three dimensional. He further stated the applicant should consider details such as continuing the wall joints around the corners to the return and review areas of the buildings that present as a flat walls with windows. Commissioner Levin advised the applicant to consider identifying the placement of the utilities for the project even though it may be early in the process. Chair Van Vliet asserted the Commission needs a complete submittal package with the updated roof and site plans which accurately reflects what the applicant is requesting approval for. 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 6-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 21-0004, was continued subject to the following: 1) The depth for the returns and offsets should be increased by an amount sufficient to provide the appearance of three dimensionality and to assist with breaking up the large mass of the buildings; 2) Other options for the color palette should be explored. 3) Clear markings such as directional signage should be provided to identify the buildings and entries; 4) The buildings should have differentiation and color coding should not be used as a method to differentiate; 5) Consideration for details such as continuing joints around the corners and flat walls with windows need to be reviewed; 6) Applicant will resubmit updated and accurate project plans for Commission review. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet. Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT; None). 2. CASE NOS: SP/PP21-0002 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to approve a Specific Plan Amendment and a Precise Plan application for DSRT SURF, a Resort Development inclusive of a Surf Lagoon and Surf Center Facility (Restaurant, Bar, Retail, and Support Facilities), a Four- Story 92 Room Hotel, and 83 Residential Villas on a vacant 17.69-acre site. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Desert Wave Ventures, PO Box 147, Solano Beach, CA 92075 LOCATION: Vacant 17.69-acre site within Desert Willow ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Vuksic advised the Commission he worked with the design team on the presentation and design for this applicant. He recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, provided a brief introduction to the item. Mr. Swartz advised a written comment from concerned citizen, Ms. Callimanis, had been received regarding this item. As she requested, her written comment was distributed to the ARC and Planning Commissioners and was read into the record by Mr. Swartz. Mr. Swartz advised for the purpose of today's meeting the focus will be on the architecture for the hotel and villas related to the project. Mr. Swartz introduced the applicant who provided a detailed presentation on the project. The Commission began with comments on the architecture of the hotel structure. Chair Van Vliet commented the parking structure appeared very prominent and looked like a flat linear wall. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Mclntosh, the applicant confirmed the parking structure will be primarily screened with landscaping. Commissioner Mclntosh asked about what will be used for the composite wood. Applicant replied they are considering the use of porcelain tile to mimic the wood look but are currently 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 working with the contractor to confirm the material they will be using. Commissioner Mclntosh observed many of the composite woods can be monochromatic, lacking variation in the wood. He added the weather in the area can be extreme and can deteriorate certain materials after the first couple of years so applicant should be mindful with their material choice. Commissioner Mclntosh complimented the applicant stating the building has a great balance of verticality and horizontal and looks great. Commissioner McAuliffe complimented the design team. He prompted the applicant to show the south elevation which features a large stone veneer on the corner of the building. Commissioner McAuliffe cautioned that due to its size the applicant should use larger stone to achieve the desired look, noting if a smaller scaled stone veneer is used it will look out of place. Additionally, to ensure a more natural look, the applicant will need to be conscientious about details such as repeats in the pattern which would be highly visible because of the scale of the stone element. Commissioner McAuliffe also noted the applicant will need to be mindful of finishing materials such as the vertical planks, which on such a massive scale could become overwhelmed if too diminutive. He advised details such as the interaction between the large boulder proposed under the porte cochere will need to be carefully considered as this is in a high traffic area and will draw more scrutiny. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Levin, the applicant confirmed they will offer night surfing and lighting is set up around the lagoon for this activity. Vice Chair Lambell observed visitors will drive past the loading door on the south elevation which appears as the back of the house. She recommended screening this loading door. The applicant agreed to review options to cover the loading door. Commissioner Levin recommended a gate for the area. Mr. Swartz advised the Commission they would now provide comments on the villas. Chair Van Vliet complimented the architecture of the villas. In reply to inquiry by Chair Van Vliet, the applicant stated the have not confirmed the placement for the condenser units but speculated they will likely be ground mounted units. Chair Van Vliet observed the villas are close together so fire access to the condenser should be considered. Commissioner Mclntosh was complimentary to the design of the villas. He commented the applicant may want to consider placing the condensers on the roof. Commissioner McAuliffe complimented the applicant for capturing the essence of the beach communities in their design. He inquired about the surf wall surrounding the lagoon and its proximity to the walkway. He recommended the applicant provide diagrammatic sections which clearly illustrate what is being proposed along the lagoon for the reviewing bodies so they better understand what is being requested and to avoid creating a potential hazard. 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 Commissioner Levin, was complimentary to the variations for the proposed garages facing the street side. He asked what material will be used for the walkway around the lagoon, the applicant replied they are considering a "porcelain wood look tile with a grit to iY' to help provide friction and would allow guests to walk on bare feet. The applicant stated they are being mindful of the different weather temperatures when evaluating the best paving material for the walkway. Commissioner Lambell complimented the applicant for the creation of living space on the third floor but expressed concern that the addition of the utility equipment on the roof will greatly impact the space and recommended a ground unit. The applicant provided a brief presentation of the Home Owners Association Clubhouse, Surf Center, and stacked flats to Commissioners. Commissioner Levin suggested variation of the garages on the stacked flats and reminded applicant to consider placement of their mechanical equipment. Vice Chair Lambell asserted if the mechanical equipment is placed on the roof of the stacked flats and it significantly alters the architecture the Commission would need to review the revision. Commissioner McAuliffe commented on the Surf Center reminding the applicant to be conscientious about the scale of the exterior material. Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Vice Chair Lambell, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. SP/PP21- 0002, was approved, subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the Commission; 2) Applicant should refrain from the use of composite wood material that appears monochromatic and is sensitive to extreme weather; 3) Considering its large size, the material for the stone veneer located on the south elevation should be scaled appropriately; 4) The hotel service utility doors should be screened; 5) Applicant should be mindful of the surf wall surrounding the lagoon and its proximity to the walkway and consider providing an additional illustration which better demonstrates what is being proposed tor this area; 6) Consider variation for the garages on the stacked flats; 7) Applicant should be conscientious about the scale of the exterior material for the Surf Center; 8) Applicant should consider roof-top A/C units for the condos. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Van Vliet; NOES: None; ABSENT: Vuksic). 3. CASE NOS: PP 20-0010/TPM 38033/CZ and GPA 20-0002 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to approve a 48-unit condominium project on four acres at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. The project includes a Change of Zone from five (5) dwelling units per acre to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, a General Plan Amendment, a Precise Plan application, Tentative Parcel Map 38033, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for environmental purposes. 9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Desert Luxury Apartments, 2755 S. Nellis Boulevard, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89121 LOCATION: 36000 Shepherd Lane ZONE: PR-5 Commissioner Vuksic rejoined the meeting. Commissioner Mclntosh excused himself at 3:38 p.m. for the remainder of the meeting due to a conflicting appointment. Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, presented the item, noting it has been brought before the Commission twice as a miscellaneous item. Commissioner Vuksic commented the building appeared "blocky" and top heavy. He further commented the attempt to soften the building with the tile roof elements are reminiscent of antiquated forms of architecture and felt this was in need of improvement. Commissioner Vuksic described some of the details on the building as "dunky," specifically noting the cornices, tacked on trim, and the heavy top on the stone columns. He remarked the overall aesthetic design is somewhat weak and needs improvement, explaining that the current design has many odd components placed together in an unartistic manner. Commissioner McAuliffe agreed with Commissioner Vuksic's comments which he felt "described the challenge", however, expressed concern that comments made by the Commission previously during the ARC meetings may not have registered with the applicant. Mr. Swartz advised on previous projects commissioners have volunteered to meet with the applicant to address concerns outside of the ARC meeting. Commissioner McAuliffe agreed this method may be the most efficient and expeditious way to help the applicant get the project moving if commissioners are amenable. He commented the project has some workable elements but there are too many themes. The developer for the project expressed his willingness to meet with commissioners outside of the ARC meeting to help make this a successful project. Chair Van Vliet asserted his disappointment that commissioners would need to donate additional time for the applicant, adding he felt it is incumbent on the applicant to assume architectural responsibility. Commissioner Levin declined further comment. Vice Chair Lambell expressed displeasure with the program the applicant had chosen to use for the renderings. She stated the applicant should meet with members of the Commission to address concerns because the currently proposed project does not work. Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Vice Chair Lambell, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 20- 0010/TPM 38033/CZ and GPA 20-0002, was continued, subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the Commission; 2) Applicant should explore options to diminish the buildings top heavy and blocky appearance; 3) Options for improvement on elements which are reminiscent of antiquated forms of architecture, such as the tile roofing, should be explored; 4) Details on the building including but not limited to, the cornices, tacked on trim, and the heavy top on the stone columns, need to be revisited; 5) Improvement to the 10 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 overall aesthetic design should be considered; 6) If possible, applicant should meet with members of the Commission outside of the ARC meeting for further comment. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: Mclntosh). 4. CASE NO: PP 20-0005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve a four unit building. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Lindquist Development, PO Box 42135, Portland, OR 97242 LOCATION: 74425 Abronia Trail ZONE: R-3 Associate Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Mr. Melloni noted this item was brought before the Commission at the Architectural Review Commission meeting held February 23, 2021. Chair Van Vliet expressed he did not care for the new design and felt it lacked architecture and questioned some of the finishing detail decisions, such as the parapet cap. Commissioner McAullife advised the Commission he participated in a meeting set up by the City in which he conversed with the applicant and provided comments on the project. He stated his only remaining comment is how they will reinforce this is a residential building and not a small office. He acknowledged the applicanYs changes and felt they were headed in the right direction. In response to inquiry by Commissioner Levin, the applicant clarified the fence would be a four foot block wall. Commissioner Vuksic remarked the project had improved a lot but noted he felt more architecture was needed. He commented he liked the added shrouds around the windows and advised the applicant they will need to be mindful of their details because they will be more pronounced with the simple design. Commissioner Vuksic inquired about the decision to run the plaster joints around the building regardless of the material and recommended they revisit this detail as well as the metal cap on the parapet. He recommended the applicant provide differentiation for the middle of the building on the rear elevation and improve the middle section for the front elevation which currently presents typical. Commissioner Vuksic inquired about the decision to use different types of windows and commented the applicant should consider making the carport roof horizontal to tie into the building's design. Vice Chair Lambell, commented the contrasting colors selected for the majority of the building will be washed out with the bright sunlight experienced in the area and recommended a higher degree of contrast for the colors to avoid this. Upon a motion by Vice Chair Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 20-0005, was continued, subject to the following: 1) Consider comments made by the 11 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 Commission; 2) Consider adding details and/or articulation which reinforce this is a residential building; 3) Revisit details such as the plaster joints, metal parapet cap and the use of different windows; 4) Provide differentiation for the middle section of the building on the rear elevation and improve the middle section for the front elevation; 5) Consider making the carport horizontal. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: Mclntosh). C. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. CASE NO: PP 21-0005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for preliminary architecture design comments on a Hillside Development Plan to construct a detached 1,112-square-foot casita on a property in the hillside zone of western Palm Desert. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Rodolfo Lizarde — Level 7, 74350 Goleta Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 LOCATION: 72240 Upper Way West ZONE: HPR Associate Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Vice Chair Lambell and Chair Van Vliet both agreed the butterfly roof proposed may be too prominent a design to blend into the hillside. Commissioner Vuksic remarked it would be helpful to have a better sense of how high this location sits on the hillside when at a lower vantage point such as Hwy 74. He further remarked as a standard, any new construction needs to blend into the hill as much as possible. Vice Chair Lambell commented she would not be opposed to the butterfly roof if the applicant could find a way to tuck it into the hill. Commissioner Vuksic advised the applicant to be mindful when determining how to screen the building and cautioned the use of dense landscaping to screen as it appears unnatural to the terrain. Chair Van Vliet commented the applicant may considered cutting into the grade to minimize the visibility of the structure. Mr. Swartz recommended the applicant complete a line of sight study to provide the Commission with a better understanding of what is visible from a lower point of view. No formal action was taken on this item as it was brought forth solely for commissioner's comments to the applicant. VI. COMMENTS Chair Van Vliet and Vice Chair Lambell voiced discontentment with having one meeting a month and asserted two meetings need to be held monthly due to the length of time. Commissioner McAuliffe commented a project as large as DSRT SURF inay warrant its own meeting to ensure adequate time is available to address any potential challenges. Mr. Swartz inquired about another Commissioner volunteering to join Commissioner McAuliffe to work with the applicant, Desert Luxury. Commissioner 12 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2021 Vuksic expressed concern that even with assistance from members of the Commission this design may not be workable. Mr. Melloni mentioned the applicant, Pacific West, would also like to meet with members of the Commission and requested volunteers. VII. ADJOURNMENT With the Architectural Review Commission concurrence, Chair Van Vliet adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. � � /- � - i- �� Eric Ceja, Secr;�tary .u�'1��+--�-a I �o✓I,z.a��[�r�= Melinda Gonzalez, Recording cretary 13