HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM #2A- Staff Report
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18, 2024 Unfinished Business
SUBJECT: A REQUEST BY SELENE PALM SPRINGS, LLC, SEEKING
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL FOR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH VILLAS RESIDENCES WITHIN THE
DREAM HOTEL COMPLEX LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF AVENIDA CABALLEROS AND AMADO ROAD ; ZONE PDD 333,
SECTION 14 (CASE 5.1132-PD 333 / TTM 35236) (ER).
FROM: Department of Planning Services
Background Information :
City Council Action:
On June 5, 2023, the City Council approved the amended project subject to conditions.
As a part of this approval, the City Council requested the ARC to review the final
development plans for the residential components of the Dream Hotel, commonly referred
to as the North and the South Villas. The City Council action approved the overall
amendment to the site plan; the main hotel building is not a part of this current review.
Architectural Advisory Committee Review & Applicant’s Responses:
The Architectural Advisory Committee (ARC) first reviewed this project at the April 15,
2024, meeting. After a prolonged deliberation on the proposed final development plans,
the ARC voted unanimously to continue the hea ring process and provided directions to
the applicant to consider making certain revisions to the plans. The applicant has since
resubmitted two revised plans addressing comments from the ARC. The first set of
revised plans were submitted to staff on May 7, 2024; staff reviewed the plans and
provided additional comments to the applicant. Following those comments, the applicant
made additional revisions to the plans and those are the plans being presented to the
ARC for consideration at the meeting of June 18, 2024. The revised plans submitted by
the applicant included responses describing the changes made to address the ARC and
staff comments and recommendations.
Below are the comments and recommendations to the applicant and the applicant's
responses to the ARC’s comments.
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 2 of 8
1. A diagram and/or roof plan layout to identify adequacy of rooftop mechanical
screening to screen all units that will be placed there, and plumbing as it relates to
general location and quantity of stack vents to the roof and drainage piping down
through the building including floor drains on the balconies.
Response: The resubmitted package includes proposed general equipment
layout plans within screened enclosures shown in elevations. For reference, see
Plans on pages 34 and 44-45; and Sections drawings on pages 37 and 48-49.
2. Dimensions in plan view for all roof and patio overhangs. Include on the roof plan
location of photovoltaic systems. Further clarity and provide details on how solar
control is achieved both with vertical and horizontal solar control elements.
Response: Both the North and South Villa s’ Buildings have incorporated longer
roof extensions and/or balconies for increased shading ; overhangs of generally 5
feet or greater. While solar panels are not mandatory, potential solar panel extents
are shown on the plans. For reference, see Sections on pages 37 and 48-49, and
roof plans on pages 34 and 44-45.
3. Provide clarification and detailed information identifying the material denoted as
wood (i.e. synthetic wood, wood simulated metal or tile, if real wood, the species,
etc.) Review the stepped fascia detail in which wood is proposed on vertical
surfaces where exposure to sun, heat, rain that would degrade the material.
Response: The resubmitted package/plans include indications of simulated
“WOOD LOOK” siding and slats that are readily available in the market. The exact
specifications and brands are not yet available, but generally they are a composite
synthetic material. For reference, see Elevations and Finish Legends on pages 35 -
36, and 46-47.
4. Provide better details (sections, elevations, dimensions) regarding the bridge
structure to the swimming pool terrace on the service building that serves the
South Villas block.
Response: Same comment above - The resubmitted package includes more
extensive information for the attached bridge and pool deck. For reference, see
Plans on pages 42, and Elevations on page 46.
5. A grading plan / topographic survey that analyzes the potential for widening of the
sidewalk along the public streets, providing more visual breaks in the perimeter
garden wall along the streets and a drainage plan showing how stormwater is
captured, retained, and conveyed off site.
Response: This project already has an approved underground water retention
plan and precise grading plan. Elevation changes can be seen on page 70 ; note
that the variation is nominal. Also, note that all landscape buffers on the sidewalk
are graded with a swale to control possibility of run -off. We also include planter
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 3 of 8
drains, for further reference see page 67. The resubmitted package shows “spot
elevations” for the majority of grades and building pads taken from the approved
plan. We are not widening the sidewalk. The design of the wall as seen on page
68 shows variation in the wall allowing for see through ar eas and variety of finish
and planes. For reference, see grading plan page 70.
6. Clarification of the wall materials / finish / color at the ramps into the subterranean
parking areas.
Response: The resubmitted package includes finishes of the garage ramp walls
as “BOARD -FORMED CONCRETE”. For reference, see Elevations on pages 35
and 47.
7. A section cut showing the property line common to the Center Court
Condominiums showing the width and adequacy of the planter strip there for both
trees and shrubs.
Response: The resubmitted package includes an illustration depicting the edge
conditions along the common property line to the Center Court neighboring
property. Adjacent to the boundary wall is a minimum 3’6” planting strip and then
aggregate of approximately 3 feet. For more reference on this, see Site Plan on
page 06, and Illustrative Section indicating planters and tree islands where
appropriate on page 69.
Below are the staff comments that the ARC directed the applicant to address; the
comments are followed by the architect/applicant’s responses and staff analysis:
Staff Recommendations in the Staff Memo of 4/15/24 and applicant’s responses:
1. Provide improved solar control on the balconies, terraces, and the full height walls
of glass, especially for morning and afternoon solar exposure such as sliding metal
screens and extended roofs.
Response: Both the North and South Villa buildings have incorporated longer
roof extensions and/or balconies for increased shading. This has been done to the
extent practical ’ considering structural cantilever performance. Future occupants
may provide internal solar control within residences. For references, see each
building’s plans on pages 29-33 and 41-44. Also, see elevations on pages 35-
36 and 46-47. Also see Sections on pages 37 and 48-49. Finally, Rendered Views
are on pages 16-18 and 21-24.
Staff Response: The applicant has improved the amount of overhang of the
roofs on the North and South Villas. Section drawings on page 37 of the exhibits
provide a clearer picture of the overhangs.
2. Lower the height of the perimeter poured -in -place concrete site walls to not more
than 6 feet as measured on the public street side and relocate the walls further into
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 4 of 8
the site at least 5 feet, consistent with the zoning code, to better accommodate
pedestrian movement and provide a more pleasant pedestrian experience along
the public streets.
Response: As was expressed at the prior ARC with respect to site security
considerations, the height of all perimeter site walls / screens has been reduced
somewhat and now shown varying at either 7’-6’ or 8’-0” from the adjacent
grade. As regards the 5-foot wall setback, this is not necessary as the wall is
already setback a. minimum of 6 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. For reference,
see Perimeter Treatment – Street Section A -A page 68.
Staff Response: The applicant has been advised that the overall site plan and
the maximum height of the perimeter walls/fences shall be 7 feet, 3 inches,
consistent with the City Council's previous approval of the amended project. The
applicant was also informed that the materials for the perimeter treat ment shall
remain the same as the original Council approval. Below are the Council approved
plans for the perimeter treatment.
Previously A pproved Site Plan with Perimeter treatment
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 5 of 8
3. Widened sidewalks to be around 8 or 9 feet in width along the public streets
recognizing the higher amount of pedestrian traffic around the Convention Center.
Response: It is noted by the Applicant that most sidewalks in the adjacent
neighborhoods range from 5 - 8 feet in width with modest pedestrian traffic . The
applicant has provided paved areas generally at 6 -feet wide, with discreet areas
that increase to 12-feet. For reference, see Site Plan on page 56, and Landscape
Sections on page 67. And finally, Axon illustrations on page 68.
Staff Response: The site plan is not a part of this review process as the City
Previously Approved Perimeter Walls Materials
7.3 ft. Maximum Height
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 6 of 8
Council, and both the Tribal Planning Commission and the Tribal Council have
previously approved the site plan with sidewalk at its current location and width.
And prior to then, the City’s Engineering Services Department reviewed the original
project and all the subsequent amendments to the site plan, they are satisfied with
the width of all the sidewalks. More importantly, below are the list conditions of
approval pertaining to sidewalks imposed by the Council ; the project shall abide
by these conditions.
PLN 13. Avenida Caballeros shall have minimum 8’ sidewalks with shade trees on
private property pursuant to Fig. 5 -7 in Section 14 Specific Plan. (Added by
PC on 6.12.13)
PLN 14. Amado Road shall have a minimum 5’ sidewalks, 4’ parkway and shade trees
spacing out 30’ or less per Section Specific Plan. (Added by PC on 6.12.13)
PLN 15. On Amado Road and Avenida Caballeros, the planting materials along the
street frontages shall be pursuant to Tables 5 -5 and 5-6 of Section 14 Specific
Plan. (Added by PC on 6.12.13)
PLN 16. Streetscape furniture shall be provided along Avenida Caballeros subject to the
approval of the Director of Public Works pursuant to Section 14 Specific Plan.
(Added by PC on 6.12.13)
PLN 17. Crosswalks at Avenida Caballeros and Calle Alvarado shall meet paving
requirements of Section 14 Specific Plan. (Added by PC on 6.12.13)
4. Revised landscape and lighting plans addressing the concerns noted in this staff
report. (Crowding of trees, coordinate trees and pole -mounted lighting fixtures; and
revise the photometric site plan to conform to the outdoor lighting ordinance,
including demonstrating minimal light spillage onto adjacent residential properties.)
and refence the suggested plant lists in the S14SP.
Response: The resubmitted package has been modified with some increased
spacing and revised tree species along the sidewalks. Site lighting adjacent to the
neighboring properties is proposed to use low-level “Bollard” types to alleviate light
spill onto adjacent properties. Additionally, there are concrete or block walls along
the entire perimeter with neighboring communities and all lighting s are lower than
the walls. Note that LX08 and LX10 are along the perimeter. For reference, see
Site Plans page s 56, 74-75, and 77-78; and Lighting Fixture types on page 83.
Staff Response: The new mix of the proposed Landscape plants selection are
not in the recommended list of the Section 14 Master Plan; however, they are listed
in the Lush and Efficient Landscape Guidelines and are desert appropriate plants.
5. Redesign the rooftop mechanical screening with materials and configuration that
are better integrated with the materials and architecture of the buildings pursuant
to Zoning Code Section 93.03.
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 7 of 8
Response: The resubmitted package has modified rooftop screens materials to
be more clearly depicted as a decorative screen that could be wood -look slats. For
references, see Elevations on pages 35-36, and 46-47.
Staff Response: The applicant has addressed the rooftop mechanical
screening; staff has also advised the applicant that Planning Commission condition
of approval from the June 13, 2013, shall apply to the project at Plan Check. COA
PLN 5 states…all roof mounted shall be s creened per the requirements of Section
93.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Use frosted or obscure glass at terrace and balcony railings to screen the view of
furnishings on the various balconies.
Response: As expressed by the applicant in the prior ARC meeting, the
suggestion to use “obscure glass” would diminish the quality and openness of
views for residents, so we would maintain clear vision glass. The applicant will
manage tenant balcony furnishings to control clutter within the CC&Rs. For
reference, see Views on pages 16-17 and 21-22.
Staff Response: Staff will include this requirement in the CC&R to ensure that
the maintenance of the property is not compromised.
7. Provide elevations and sections of the service building including the roof deck /
pool for the South Villas block.
Response: The service building was approved with the hotel approvals and not
a part of this review. We have provided an elevation of the bridge with wood -like
slats covering the bridge. The resubmitted package includes more extensive
information on the pool deck. For reference, see Plan on page 42, and the
elevation on page 46.
Staff Response: The service building is a part of the main hotel building
previously approved by the City Council; the building is not a part of this review
process. The bridge connecting the South Villas to the Service building is new; the
applicant has provided additional elevation of the in the resubmitted package.
Conclusion:
The applicant has responded to the comments and recommendations made by the ARC
and staff . However, there are two outstanding issues that will not be resolved by the ARC
or staff. The first issue is the proposed gate at the entrance to the South Villas on Avenida
Caballeros which is a site plan change that would require approval by the Planning
Commission or City Council. The second issue is the proposed eigh t-foot (8’) high
perimeter wall. Pursuant to the City Ordinance, the maximum height of perimeter walls in
residential areas is six (6) feet. However, the City Council previously approved a si te plan
with a perimeter fence with maximum height limitation of seven feet, three inches (7’.3”).
The applicant may choose to move forward with that approval ; if the applicant decides to
Architectural Review Committee Memo
Case # 5.1132 - PDD 333 The Dream Hotel
June 18, 2024 – Page 8 of 8
proceed with the eight-foot (8’) high perimeter fence, it will require that they return to the
Planning Commission or City Council. Also, should the applicant decide to stay with that
height limitation, the proposed fencing material shall be required to conform with the
original approval as well. Overall, the final PD plans conform to the previously adopted
design and development standards of the Planned Development District Standards and
the Section 14 Master Plan standards. Some of the proposed Landscape plants selection
are not in the recommended list of the Section 14 Mas ter Plan, however, they are listed
in the Lush and Efficient Landscape Guidelines and are desert appropriate plants.
RECOMMENDATION :
That the Architectural Review Committee approve the Final Planned Development Plans,
subject to these additional conditions:
1. The proposed entry gate located at the South Villas along Avenida Caballeros shall
be removed. Alternatively, an amendment would need to be sought from the
Planning Commission or City Council.
2. The maximum height of the proposed perimeter fence shall not exceed seven feet,
three inches (7’.3”), as was previously approved by the City Counc il.
3. The materials for the proposed perimeter fence shall be consistent with the original
approval by the City Council.
PREPARED BY: Edward Robertson . Principal City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ARC Draft Resolution .
2. ARC Minutes from the meeting of April 15, 2024.
3. Revised Plans/Exhibits.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE PDD 5.1132-PDD 333,
FINAL DEVELOPMNET PLANS 3 33 FOR THE NORTH AND
SOUTH VILLAS, THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE
DREAM HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AVENIDA CABALLEROS AND
EAST AMADO ROAD , ZONE PDD 333; SECTION 14.
THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. The Selene Plam Springs, LLC, (“Applicant”) has filed an application for approval of the
Final Development Plans for the North and South Villas of Planned Development District 3 33
with the City pursuant to Section 94.0 3.00(G) of the Zoning Code to allow the construction of
the residential component of the Dream Hotel development located at the North w est corner of
Avenida Caballeros and East Amado Road, Zone PDD 333; Section 14.
B. On April 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2042, amending Section
94.04.00 of the PSZC to reassign review of Major Architectural Review (MAJ) applications
from the City’s Planning Commission to the City’s Architectural R eview Committee.
C. On June 5, 2023, a public hearing meeting on a proposed amendment to the overall site
plan and the residential components con sisting of the South and North Villas , was held by the
City Council in accordance with applicable law and made recommendations to the ARC to
review the final architectural design, materials, and color palette of the buildings.
D. On April 15, 2024, the Architectural Review Committee considered the proposed final
development plans for the North and South Villas. At the said meeting, the Architectural
Review Committee deliberated on the proposed final design and voted unanimously with
directions to the applicant to make certain changes to the plans and bring for a further review.
D. On June 18, 2024, the City’s Architectural Review Committee held a public meeting in
accordance with applicable public law. At said meeting, the Architectural Review Committee
carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence pr esented in connection with the P roject,
including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all writt en and oral testimony presented.
THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLVES:
Section 1: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was previously adopted by the City
Council on July 18, 2007, for the project. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, further environmental documentation is not
necessary because the proposed minor amendment to the project will not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. The proposed Final Development Plans wou ld not result in any new
Architectural Review Committee Resolution No. June 18, 2024
Case 5.1056 PD 333 – NWC of Avenida Caballeros & East Amado Road .
Page 2 of 2
environmental impacts beyond those already assessed in the previously adopted Mitigated
Negative Declaration. On June 5, 2023, the City Council determined that given the scope of
the current proposed final development plans, further environmental review is not needed.
Section 2: As demonstrated in the staff report, the Project conforms to the Architectural
Guidelines of PSZC Section 94.04.00 (“architectural review”).
Section 3: Based upon the foregoing, the Architectural Review Committee hereby approves
Case No. 5.1132 – PDD 333; Final Development Plans for PDD 3 33 for the final development
of the residential component consisting of the North and South Villas within the Dream Hotel
development located at the North w est corner of Avenida Caballeros and East Amado Road,
Zone PDD 333; Section 14.
ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 2024.
MOTION:
AYES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
______________________________________
Christopher Hadwin
Director of Planning Services
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Council Chambers
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262
www.palmspringsca.gov
MINUTES
of the regularly scheduled meeting of April 15, 2024
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Doczi called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members Present: Doczi, Thomas, McCoy, Walsh, Thompson, O’Donnell
Members Excused: Poehlein, Fredricks
Staff Present: Ken Lyon, RA, Principal Planner, Edward Robertson,
Principal Planner
REPORT OF THE POSTING OF AGENDA: This agenda was available for public access
at the City Hall bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) by 9:00 pm, Wednesday,
April 11, 2024, and posted on the City’s website as required by established policies and
procedures.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
Motion by Walsh, seconded by McCoy to accept the Agenda.
AYES: DOCZI, THOMAS, MCCOY, WALSH, THOMPSON, O’DONNELL
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
1A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 1, 2024
Motion by McCoy, seconded by Thomas, to accept the Minutes of April 1, 2024.
AYES: DOCZI, THOMAS, MCCOY, WALSH, THOMPSON, O’DONNELL
Architectural Review Committee Minutes
April 15, 2024
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
2. UNFINSHED BUSINESS: None.
3. NEW BUSINESS: None.
3A. AN APPLICATION BY SELENE PALM SPRINGS, LLC, SEEKING
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE
DREAM HOTEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
AVENIDA CABALLEROS AND AMADO ROAD (APN 508-034-020);
ZONE PDD 333, SECTION 14 (CASE 5.1132-PD 333 / TTM 35236). (KL)
RECOMMENDATION: Revise and Resubmit.
Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, summarized the staff report.
Laura Kiby, Member Selene Palm Springs LLC, and Vic Froglia, AO Architects, for the
applicant, answered questions and further summarized the design of the project.
Tom Boudrot, resident, Center Court Condominiums, expressed concerns about the
consistency with previous approvals of the building heights, increased size of the Villas
buildings and conformance with previously agreed upon sightlines.
Motion by Walsh, seconded by O’Donnell, for continuation, to revise and resubmit the
project for ARC review based upon the recommendations / concerns in the staff report,
and:
1. A diagram and/or roof plan layout to identify adequacy of rooftop mechanical
screening to screen all units that will be placed there, and plumbing as it relates to
general location and quantity of stack vents to the roof and drainage piping down
through the building including floor drains on the balconies;
2. Dimensions in plan view for all roof and patio overhangs. Include on the roof plan
location of photovoltaic systems. Further clarity and provide details on how solar
control is achieved both with vertical and horizontal solar control elements;
3. Provide clarification and detailed information identifying the material denoted as
wood (i.e. synthetic wood, wood simulated metal or tile, if real wood, the species,
etc.). Review the stepped fascia detail in which wood is proposed on vertical
surfaces where exposure to sun, heat, rain that would degrade the material.
4. Provide better details (sections, elevations, dimensions) regarding the bridge
structure to the swimming pool terrace on the service building that serves the
South Villas block;
5. A grading plan / topographic survey that analyzes the potential for widening of the
sidewalk along the public streets, providing more visual breaks in the perimeter
garden wall along the streets and a drainage plan showing how stormwater is
captured, retained and conveyed off site.
6. Clarification of the wall materials / finish / color at the ramps into the subterranean
parking areas.
Architectural Review Committee Minutes
April 15, 2024
Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
7. A section cut showing the property line common to the Center Court
Condominiums showing the width and adequacy of the planter strip there for both
trees and shrubs.
AYES: DOCZI, O’DONNELL, THOMAS, MCCOY, WALSH, THOMPSON
NOES: None.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: None.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Planner Lyon mentioned the consultant working on the updates
to the zoning code have been on site this past week. Completion of the zoning code
update has an anticipated timeline of 22 to 24 months.
ADJOURNMENT: The Architectural Review Committee of the City of Palm Springs
adjourned at 7:15 p.m., to its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, May 6, 2024, at
5:30 pm at 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher Hadwin
Christopher Hadwin
Director of Planning Services