Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-28 �z � �rr�' ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT .� � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION - MINUTES April 28, 2015 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 7 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 7 Paul Clark X 7 Gene Colombini X 7 Allan Levin X 7 Michael McAuliffe X 7 Jim Mclntosh X 7 � John Vuksic X 6 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:03/10l15; III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 24, 2015 and April 14, 2015 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 24, 2015 and April 14, 2015. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. � r � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 � V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 14-254 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a monument sign for the Willow Vista sign program. LOCATION: 39-800 Portola Avenue ZONE: O.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a new 5' tall non- illuminated monument sign for Willow Vista. He pointed out that the previously approved sign program had a monument sign facing Portola Avenue but that the design would come back at a future date. He pointed out the location and described the design. The applicant is also requesting identification signs within the center ` that will list the addresses only and will be 4' in height. He passed around a materials board for review. This meets the City's sign ordinance and blends in with the architecture of the buildings. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Clark asked what the City's ordinance was for the height of directional signs and Mr. Swartz said there wasn't a set height, but 4' is consistent of what you see in other shopping centers. Mr. Bagato said in the sign program the Commission can recommend a deviation in height. Commissioner Mclntosh asked for lighting detail. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, Architect, said the only lighting would be landscape ground lighting on the monument signs. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Vuksic abstaining. � G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150428min.docx Page 2 of 9 � ��rrrr �rr� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 � B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 15-19 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: WESTliving, LLC, Attn: Alyce Conti, 5796 Armada Drive, Suite 300, Carlsbad, CA 92008 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve architectural and landscape design for a two- story, 150-unit assisted living facility with a memory care component on Lot 4 within Villa Portofino; WESTliving. LOCATION: 40-235 Portola Avenue ZONE: P.R.-5 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this project has returned for the third time and reminded the Commission that this project is part of Villa Portofino on Portola Avenue for 150 assisted living and memory care units. The last time it was here the Commission wanted an enlargement of the renderings and the applicant has �+' provided those for today's meeting. MR. GARTH BRANDOW, architect, described the changes they made since the last meeting. The Commission and the architect discussed the tower and the gable ends and the recessed stucco windows in those areas. Mr. Swartz presented a materials board for review. The Commission discussed their concerns with the trellis material at the end wings and was concerned with twisting. MR. BRANDOW indicated where these trellises would be located and said it is a wood-treated product. Commissioner Lambell asked them to take into consideration the thickness of the wood and be aware of the twisting. The Commission discussed the materials board and pointed out that a clay tile was represented on the board, but the plans show concrete. MR. BRANDOW confirmed that it would be concrete tile. The Commission requested that both the materials board and plans need to reflect concrete tile. Commissioner Mclntosh said there have been some minor changes �` but was still concerned with proportion; however he feels there are parts of the building that are great. Commissioner Vuksic said he G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150428min.docx Page 3 of 9 r � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 � made the comment at the last meeting about thickening the walls and his intent with that comment was for the applicant to pick some spots in the building and thicken the walls so the windows have more of a recess. He was actually thinking 12 to 18" thick recesses, not 2" as proposed. Mr. BRANDOW explained that some windows would have recesses and some would have trim. Commissioner Vuksic feels the Commission has been careful by not stepping on their toes and to let them figure out how to make the building feel more substantial and have more of a sense of quality and mass. However, he feels like they are edging it along trying to get to the place where it's approvable. MR. BRANDOW said they have gone to great lengths to support the program with the amount of articulation they have. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the medallions and said they do help because now there is something in those gable areas. However, they used the exact same one and it is disappointing. He then discussed the ridgeline and said the way they have done this accentuates it as a mansard roof. He suggested creating a break in the roof plane. r Commissioner McAuliffe acknowledged the progress they are making and feels it is a handsome project. He and the architect discussed expansion joints where the building has to be seismically isolated. MR. BRANDOW said they do have some area separation walls that will act as a separation within the building. Commissioner McAuliffe asked if they would see any seismic joints running up the face of the exterior to the roof. MR. BRANDOW answered no. Commissioner McAuliffe said the medallions do help and suggested they look at the proportion of the medallions over the small and larger windows. The medallion feels right over the triple window but too large over the smaller windows. He suggested they look at the scale of that and not replicate that everywhere. He asked if there has been any further development on the carports. MR. BRANDOW said at the last meeting they indicated they would be bringing that back at a later date. Commissioner Mclntosh said this is a little frustrating and shares the same concern regarding the changes recently made. He agrees that they are inching along making little changes. Compared to the first submittal very small changes have been made, but in proportion to the size of the building it's hard to notice. He feels that `' what gives this a non-substantial look is the proportion in scale of G:\PlanningUanineJudy�P,RC\1Minutes�2015\150428min.docx Page 4 of 9 s �`` ��� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 � the rooflines. IYs apparent by the cut-outs that it's a mansard roof. He feels they are missing the opportunity for articulation and interest in this building that the Commission is looking for. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that there was some really nice layering that is happening and feels there is a lot of opportunity for more layering. He and MR. BRANDOW reviewed a Google earth image of Seqovia and discussed the architecture of that building. The Commission and the architect discussed the architecture of their building in detail. Commissioner Vuksic said they stand by their comment about liking the south elevation and the applicant needs to bring that feeling into more of the project. He said this Commission is trying to help them understand where there are some shortcomings in the overall kind of sense of quality in the architecture. MR. BRANDOW said he understands and said they have worked on hundreds of projects with different standards and understands that every community is unique and are looking for a certain identity and quality that is fitting for their community. They have success with being able to work with committee's getting their projects approved from a design "� standpoint. MR. BRANDOW said they have been to the committee three times now and have offered additional information and additional design features and refinement at every level by providing larger illustrations to speak toward what they are offering. Chair Van Vliet said iYs more than just larger elevations. He said they haven't submitted sufficient detailing to make this building work and feels they have done a minimal amount every time. And that's the reason they have been here three times. MR. BRANDOW suggested holding a workshop with a couple of the Commissioners and staff to assist them with providing additional details. Commissioner Mclntosh feels they have provided them with ideas for the areas of concerns. Commissioner Vuksic believes the architect understands what the Commission is asking for. Mr. Bagato said the Commission will make a motion and if it's not approved the applicant can appeal to City Council, or it will be continued and the applicant can work with staff and a couple of commissioners to set up a meeting this week to resubmit again with '�'" some of the comments. The Commission and the architect G:\PlanningUanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2015\150428min.docx Page 5 of 9 .- � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 w discussed the workshop. Commissioner Clark suggested bringing in a computer model and look at different alternatives. Commissioner Mclntosh asked the architect how he would define Palm Desert's architectural design issues within our community. MR. BRANDOW said in this community there are Mission, Mediterranean, and Tuscan elements. He pointed out that early on they have offered some Tuscan characteristics. Commissioner Mclntosh asked if this was Tuscan. MR. BRANDOW said that is where they had started. Commissioner Mclntosh performed a quick exercise. He referred everyone to page A9 and asked them to cover up the second story of the building. He indicated that the bottom looks really great with the Italian Cypress, stone materials, nice depth, window articulation, trellises and columns. Next he asked them to cover the bottom to just show the roofline. He pointed out that this is where it is totally lacking. He discussed the 6" wood fascia and a 2' overhang traveling around everything that is just so consistent and thin. There is nothing Tuscan about that roofline. He said that in a big two story building the roofline is a very important part of the perception of the building. Commissioner Clark said this is a very �" massive building that covers 68,000 square feet and the upper story will be quite visible. Mr. Swartz suggested continuing this and putting together a workshop with the applicant, staff, and a couple of the Commissioners. Commissioners Vuksic, McAuliffe and Colombini agreed to the workshop. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case No. MISC 15-19 subject to: 1) both the materials board and plans need to reflect concrete tile; 2) create a break in roof planes - certain portions of the roof look like mansard; 3) medallions need to be varied in size and proportional to the areas where applied; 4) thicken building walls in certain locations; 5) recess windows at least 12" where the walls are thickened; 6) create different building breaks to alleviate the same look of 2' overhangs throughout; and 7) look at incorporating some of the Tuscan elements into the top half of the building to give it character. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. � G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150428min.docx Page 6 of 9 c � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 .r 2. CASE NO: MISC 15-96 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GHA Companies, Attn: Mario Gonzalez, 30875 Date Palm Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to preliminarily approve architectural and landscape plans for the Genesis at Millennium single-family home development including landscape plans for perimeter streets and interstate 10 freeway frontage. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Portola Avenue (part of the Millennium Palm Desert Specific Plan) ZONE: PR-6 Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, presented plans for the Millennium Palm Desert Specific Plan. He said the City Council previously approved a multi-use 162-acre master plan located on the northern portion of the community that backs up to the freeway between Portola Avenue and Technology Drive; bordering Gerald �° Ford Drive. This is a mix of uses; commercial development, a 27- acre city park, multi-family housing and a business park. Today the Commission will be reviewing the 38-acres for the single-family home site which is referred to as Genesis at Millennium. Within this development there are 166 lots for single-family homes with three distinct product types including 27 different elevations. He described the elevations for Plan 1, Plan 2, and Plan 3 as well as the landscape plan which will be drought tolerant or compatible with the desert. Trees along the freeway will create a consistent tree theme and will grow dense enough and quick enough to form a hedge to help filter air quality off the freeway. Other trees will be planted behind them to create an understory for the other trees in that same area and to also help with air quality. Staff has suggested that some trees be pulled back to create some movement. The Commission reviewed and discussed the landscape plans. Commissioner Clark suggested they introduce a third species at certain strategic intervals. Mr. Ceja said each of the planting areas, except for the city park site, will come back to this Commission when it is developed. At that time, there will be additional opportunities for more landscape in each of the planting areas. � G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes�2015\150428min.docx Page 7 of 9 ,� , � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 � MR. MARIO GONZALES, GHA Companies, thanked the Commission for allowing them to present their project. Over the last year, they have been working with staff and City Council to put together this 152 acres, which was basically a joint venture with the City. They will extend Dinah Shore Drive (Dinah Shore) as a loop, which will isolate the single family housing component. Constructing Dinah Shore will be the first improvement constructed, and the plans are already in plan check to create the boundary for the neighborhood when Dinah Shore is installed. There are a total of nine planning areas and GHA Companies own seven. They will be the developer on this entire site. He described the grading, undulation and movement on the street. He also described the style of homes, the models, the calming devices placed on the street, a turning lane, and the planting areas. The Commission and the applicant discussed the material boards, stucco texture, massing, and the different home styles and colors. They also discussed the locations of the two story homes and the model complex. Commissioner Mclntosh said they have a nice variety of colors, materials, forms and styles. He and the applicant discussed patios, `' directory signage within the community, and street parking. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the corner window detail on the contemporary style and said it didn't look like it's a detail that is carrying around and felt it was something to be careful about. MR. TOM WONG, architect, said they can take care of that and make it a little bit cleaner and consistent. Commissioner Vuksic also discussed the elements on the contemporary design that go to the top of some of the windows and down one side. He likes the way they look because the thinness of them is what makes them really cool so he hopes they can carry that through. Commissioner McAuliffe discussed the pitched roof over the garage element on the two-story Contemporary and said it seems foreign to the contemporary and seems out of place. He suggested they take a look at it especially how the eyebrow comes and lands on it. MR. JOSEPH DIGRADO, architect, said that is something they can change so it would be more consistent with the other architecture. � G:\PlanningUanineJudy�ARC\1Miwtes12015\150428min.docx Page 8 of 9 • _� ��rrw' `w�` ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2015 � ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminarily approve, including landscape, subject to: 1) landscape changes including no palm trees in the right of way; 2) replace canopy trees in right of way with smaller tree species; and 3) increase spacing of perimeter landscape trees to allow views into project area. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner McAuliffe, and an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet �""` and Vuksic voting YES, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. �� � '� TONY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY 1�1 J I JUDY R C DING SECRETARY � � G:\PlanningUanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150428min.docx Page 9 of 9 t � � � v r �