The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-08-30 ARC Special Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT SPECIAL MEETING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2022 – 12:30 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Vuksic called the meeting to order at 12:31 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Absent Dean Wallace Colvard X Nicholas Latkovic X Michael McAuliffe X Jim McIntosh X John Vuksic X Also Present: Todd Hileman, City Manager Chris Escobedo, Assistant City Manager/Director of Development Services Richard Cannone, Deputy Director of Development Services Rosie Lua, Planning Manager Nick Melloni, Senior Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Randy Chavez, Community Services Manager Shawn Muir, Management Analyst Melinda Gonzalez, Recording Secretary The attendance record report was provided with the agenda materials. The Commission took no action on this matter. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Vuksic read aloud oral communications advising the public of their opportunity to speak on items not on the agenda at this time in the meeting. No public comments were provided. MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 2022 2 IV. CASES It should be noted associated staff reports, memos, attachments, and discussion on the following items can be viewed by visiting the Architectural Review Commission Information Center website at, https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees- and-commissions/commission-information. A. FINAL DRAWINGS 1. CASE NO: MISC22-0009 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a request for a new front entry façade modification and minor addition to the Palm Desert Community Center located within the Civic Center Park. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Desert Recreation District, Indio, CA 92201 LOCATION: 43900 San Pablo Avenue ZONE: P Senior Planner, Nick Melloni, narrated a PowerPoint presentation on the item and responded to Commission inquiries. The presentation was turned over to the applicant, and their architect, Matt Acton, who presented additional details on the project and answered questions from the Commission. Discussion on the item ensued with Commissioners providing comments and concerns for the project. Chair Vuksic opened and closed the public comment period, there being no member of the public desiring to speak. Following discussion, a motion for continuance was made by Vice Chair McIntosh, seconded by Commissioner Latkovic, and carried by a 5-0 vote of the Commission. During deliberations, Commissioners’ offered commentary as follows: 1) Applicant shall submit a complete application packet including a clearly defined roof plan; 2) Massing should be prioritized over materials to give definition to the building; 3) Revisit corner detail of stone materials, if available, use pre-fabricated mitered corners or use different material; 4) Provide consistency for shading elements proposed, including material and placement of supporting structures for awnings; and 5) Integrate eyebrows in a more thoughtful manner. (AYES: Colvard, Latkovic, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None). Individual Commissioner’s offered additional commentary as follows. The points below do not necessarily reflect consensus: • Consider different placement for proposed stone material. • Stone material at entry should return fully to inside corner. • Directional placement of metal panels should be consistent. • The stone veneer shall wrap at corners and should only terminate where there is a change in building plane or building massing. The final construction plans shall include sufficient detail to demonstrate how the stone veneer will be applied. MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 2022 3 • Final construction plans shall include a detail indicating the stone veneer will have mitered corners. • Final roof plan shall demonstrate the parapet return of the front entry tower is consistent with the elevations approved by ARC. • Final construction plans shall include a detail showing the stone veneer columns shall project a minimum of 0’-8” from the building fascia to be consistent with the elevations approved by ARC. • Cornice detail does not fit with proposed design. By consensus, the Commission directed the applicant to revise the project design based on Commissioners’ comments and to return to the Commission to a date uncertain. 2. CASE NO: PP21-0009 – Amendment #1 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of an amendment to PP21-0009 revising the exterior architecture for the 330-unit multi- family residential community on a 15-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and extension of Technology Drive. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Apogee Professional Services, Omaha, NE, 68144 LOCATION: NE Corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Technology Drive ZONE: Millennium Specific Plan Area 7, PR-22 Senior Planner, Nick Melloni, narrated a PowerPoint presentation on the item and responded to Commission inquiries. The presentation was turned over to the applicant and their team including Kassie Inness and architect, Michael Militello, who presented additional details on the project and answered questions from the Commission. Discussion on the item ensued with Commissioners providing comments and concerns for the project. Chair Vuksic opened and closed the public comment period, there being no member of the public desiring to speak. Following discussion, a motion for continuance was made by Chair Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and carried by a 5-0 vote of the Commission. During deliberations, Commissioners’ offered commentary as follows: 1) Originally approved glazing design proposed at stairwell towers should remain, if modified glazing should be designed to differentiate stairwell tower from residential unit glazing; 2) Surfaces between upper and lower window stories should be recessed at least two inches to maintain vertical appearance; 3) Retain more of the metal window awnings from the original design; 4) Downspouts should be internal; 5) Proposed white vinyl should be dark vinyl; and 6) Applicant should be mindful of roof design. (AYES: Colvard, Latkovic, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None). MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 2022 4 Individual Commissioner’s offered additional commentary as follows. The points below do not necessarily reflect consensus: • Preserve elements of original approval as much as possible. • Windows need more recessing. • Panel between windows should be recessed to preserve architectural detail. • Revisit massing, forms should have undulation/change in plane where color transitions, and increased recessing. • Dark vertical elements should remain recessed from white stucco forms. • Provide a variety of stucco textures including areas where wood shiplap detail is being removed. • Revisit downspout terminations including those that terminate into planters. By consensus, the Commission directed the applicant to revise the project design based on Commissioners’ comments and to return to the Commission to a date uncertain. B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO: PP22-0005 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of a Precise Plan for West Coast Storage Facility, a 53,378 square-foot personal storage facility located at the northwest corner of Dick Kelly Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Scott A. Mommer Consulting, Peoria AZ, 85383 LOCATION: NWC - Dick Kelly Drive and Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: SI Senior Planner, Nick Melloni, narrated a PowerPoint presentation on the item and responded to Commission inquiries. The presentation was turned over to the applicant and their team, including Janay Mommer, Jim Fitzpatrick, and Colleen Nolan, who presented additional details on the project and answered questions from the Commission. Discussion on the item ensued with Commissioners providing comments and concerns for the project. Chair Vuksic opened and closed the public comment period, there being no member of the public desiring to speak. Following discussion, a motion for continuance was made by Commissioner McAuliffe, seconded by Vice Chair McIntosh, and carried by a 5-0 vote of the Commission. During deliberations, Commissioners’ offered commentary as follows: 1) Revisit design techniques used to break up overall mass of the building, design should be more cohesive; 2) Remove trellis elements; 3) Revisit central connecting element on south elevation, provide relief or other element to allow design to read as two buildings instead of a continuous building; 4) Provide a suitable alternative for southern live oak; 5) The applicant shall provide a meandering sidewalk and additional landscaping MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 2022 5 on the Dinah Shore Drive frontage, rather than curb adjacent landscaping, to maintain consistency with existing industrial development along the corridor, while considering vehicular line-of-sight for Dinah Shore Drive and Spyder Circle; 6) The applicant shall provide additional landscape plantings for trees along Dinah Shore Drive and Dick Kelly Drive; 7) The applicant shall provide additional cobble as a part of the landscape plan to provide a variation in texture, soil stabilization, and for resistance to high winds; 8) The applicant shall verify that the roof-top units on the western portion of the building shall fully screened with consideration to the changes in parapet height to ensure there is no visibility from all vantage points; 9) The applicant shall identify the minimum number of landscape plantings for each respective live planting shown on the landscape plan; 10) The proposed exterior wall signage construction, if proposed facing existing residential and/or residentially zoned properties, shall utilize halo-illumination to reduce glare for adjacent residential areas; 11) Roof drainage systems shall be placed within interior walls; 12) Applicant shall provide screening of parking areas from Spyder Circle by means of low block wall, landscape, or berm; and 13) The walls of the trash enclosure shall be finished to match the primary building. (AYES: Colvard, Latkovic, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Vuksic; NOES: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None). Individual Commissioner’s offered additional commentary as follows. The points below do not necessarily reflect consensus: • Consider use of landscaping, glazing, or other elements to break up building and to help with transition from residential to commercial. • Variety in architecture is too diverse and does not tie together, use a continuous theme to provide a more cohesive design. By consensus, the Commission directed the applicant to revise the project design based on Commissioners’ comments and to return to the Commission to a date uncertain. C. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. DISCUSSION and feedback regarding proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 1374 § 1 and Ordinance 1258 § 1, revising Section 24.04.060 (Invasive Plant Species) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to Prohibited Landscape Material for Development Design and Installation. Management Analyst, Shawn Muir, and Community Services Manager, Randy Chavez, acknowledged the staff report before the Commission and requested feedback on the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioners provided comments and agreed with staff’s recommendation to City Council for the proposed ordinance revision. V. COMMENTS Planning Manager, Rosie Lua, reported at the last City Council meeting a new commissioner was appointed to the ARC. Upon request, Planning Manager Lua provided an update on the DSRT Surf project. MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 2022 6 In response to inquiry, Planning Manager Lua provided an update on the proposed project for 394-units located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue (PP/CUP22-0006). VI. ADJOURNMENT The Architectural Review Commission adjourned at 3:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melinda Gonzalez, Senior Administrative Assistant Recording Secretary ATTEST: Rosie Lua, Planning Manager Secretary APPROVED BY ARC: 9/13/2022