Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-24 ' • �rr � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • ' MINUTES February 10, 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 2 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 2 Paul Clark X 2 Gene Colombini X 2 Allan Levin X 2 Michael McAuliffe X 2 Jim Mclntosh X 2 John Vuksic X 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor } Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting: III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 27, 2015 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the January 27, 2015 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. . ARCHITECTURAL REV�'V COMMISSION �' MINUTES February 10, 2015 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: CUP 14-209 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: LASMSALP dba Verizon Wireless, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bldg D, First Floor, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new 48' monopalm. LOCATION: 40-004 Cook Street ZONE: O.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was approved at a previous meeting for a 48' monopalm on Cook Street along with six live canary palms. However, after reviewing the area for placement of those six live trees, the applicant found the area too small. The applicant is now proposing a reduction in the number of live canary palms from six to four. He presented a photo sim showing the location of the monopalm and the, addition of four live palms. He said the monopalm is 48' tall and the live palms will be staggered from 25' to 35'. Staff approves the reduction and is recommending approval. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve four live canary palms surrounding monopalm. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. 2. CASE NO: SA 15-42 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: BEAGLE ONE, INC. 203 W. Harcourt Road, Angola, IN 46703 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve two new awnings; Boston Proper. LOCATION: 73-585 EI Paseo ZONE: C.1 S.P. G:�Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 2 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION `'� MINUTES February 10, 2015 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this is a proposal for two new awnings for Boston Proper on EI Paseo. They will be replacing the existing awnings which will project 36" out from the building with an 8' c�earance from the sidewalk. The awnings will be more rectangular in shape without fabric on the side similar to the existing awnings. He passed around samples of the Heather Beige Sunbrella fabric. MR. PETER KLINE, Permits & More, described the framing and shape of the awnings and stated there wouldn't be any signage on the awning. Commissioner Vuksic was okay with that as long as the connections look nice. He and the applicant reviewed and discussed how the awning will be connected to the building. Mr. Swartz said signage will be placed on the building and that submittal will be approved over the counter. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Mclntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-46 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ALLIED DISTRICT PROPERTIES, 180 N. Stetson Avenue, Suite 3240, Chicago, I� 60601 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving architectural modifications to Buildings E & F; EI Paseo Square. LOCATION: 73-411 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Commissioner Vuksic recused himself from this project and remained in the conference room. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said the Commission at a previous meeting approved the fa�ade remodel for Buildings C & D. Today they are proposing exterior modifications for Buildings E & F. MR. JOHN GREENWOOD, Prest-Vuksic Architects, introduced himself, and MR. PAUL GOODMAN and MS. CATHY GREENE G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 3 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL RE�V COMMISSION � MINUTES February 10, 2015 from Allied District Properties who were on the phone. He said they were unable to fiy in for this meeting. He explained that one of the main reasons the plan was in front of the Commission was for architectural changes to emphasize the entry sequence for a second tenant. On Building E, he described changes to a new entry sequence, canvas awnings consistent to Building D, and a 2' height increase to the tower on the southeast corner to compliment the architecture and to incorporate the new entry. They did some value engineering on the storefront sequence at the tower, removed the window fins and changed the mullion design a bit. He thinks the changes and revisions are consistent with what they have done with Buildings C & D. He also pointed out that the accent around the main storefront windows is silver metallic stucco which is consistent with Building D. They have also removed the metal skin paneling from the project entirely and in place of that is the new stucco entry sequence on the east side. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the removal of the fins and believes they added interest and playfulness to that corner. She understands value engineering and asked if there was something else they can do to that corner to give it the attitude it had before. MR. GREENWOOD said value engineering is an important aspect of any project and they looked at all opportunities. However, they could re-evaluate it and put the fins back in. Commissioner Clark said the fins were put back on the big tower and that's not that far away. The big tower will stand out and be a landmark for the center. MR. GREENWOOD said that is an anchor and Building E is secondary although still very important. The Commission and MR. GREENWOOD reviewed and discussed the reduction of trellises and the depth of those elements. MR. GREENWOOD said they decreased the depth of the trellises from 8' to 5' and removed a canopy from the corner. Chair Van Vliet said it appears that a lot of detail has been taken off the building. MR. GREENWOOD said the trellises will still provide ample shading along the southern elevation. He pointed out the stucco color change from terracotta to a sandy color on Building E and the removal of the metal skin which is consistent with the removal from Building C & D. Commissioner McAuliffe and MR. GREENWOOD discussed the main canopies and the change to a wide flange with a solid canopy which is again consistent with Building C & D. Commissioner Levin and MR. GREENWOOD reviewed and discussed the roof plan and the HVAC units. MR. GREENWOOD said the two units will be screened by the parapets. The top of the units are 19'-3" and the main parapet will be 19'-9". He pointed out G:\Planning\JanineJudylARC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 4 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL RE�'W COMMISSION `'�'` MINUTES February 10, 2015 that the roof access is now located in the electrical room on the south elevation. Commissioner Mclntosh referred to the towers and the removal of the louvers and said the building is now lacking the detail that really helped them gain their initial approval. He feels that Building E has lost character. The Commission and the applicant discussed the details. MR. GREENWOOD moved on to the changes to Building F and said this building is closer to the Highway 111 entrance between Building E and the existing Wells Fargo building. The intent was to accentuate the entry sequence for the southern tenant in that building. They have provided a canopy consistent with Buildings D & E and maintained the same column massing. The tower for the northern tenant was raised in elevation by 2' and the canopy on the north tower will have a wide flange versus the original entitled plan and the fins have been removed from the tower element. He pointed out that both electrical rooms were shifted to the south elevation versus the west. Chair Van Vliet said it appears they are doing the same thing on this building as what they have done on Building E. Commissioner Lambell addressed her comments to MR. GOODMAN and MS. GREENE (on the phone) by saying what makes a Prest-Vuksic building unique in the valley is that they aren't cookie cutter, however she feels this building has been dumbed down by removing parts of its personality. This Commission likes attention to detail and urged the design group to really think long and hard about that. MR. GOODMAN (on the phone) asked if she was talking about the metal fins in the tower specifically. Commissioner Lambell said that was one of the things she was referring to. MR. GOODMAN and MR. GREENWOOD discussed the fins. MR. GOODMAN asked if all the fins were removed from the Fresh Market tower or were they just reduced. MR. GREENWOOD said what happened on the Building C tower was that the spacing of the horizontal mullions increased a little bit and if the Commissioners agree they could add the fins back on for Building E and increase the horizontal spacing. So instead of seven there would only be five on the southeast and northwest towers. He feels they can take the same route on Buildings E & F as they did with Buildings C & D and match the same intent. Chair Van Vliet asked if there was any metal skin still left on the building or did they remove it all. MR. GREENWOOD said the metal skin originally proposed has been omitted from every G\Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 5 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REV�+ii'V COMMISSION � MINUTES February 10, 2015 building. The substitution on Buildings C & D is a stucco product by Omega; a metallic paint that proves itself to be a nice substitution for the metal skin. Commissioner Clark asked for a description of the enhancements of the new proposal versus the old proposal. MR. GREENWOOD said they studied the cohesiveness and consistency between the development of Buildings C & D and Buildings E & F. Building D on the southeast corner will have the TMG bottom wood ceiling, accent lighting, and a painted W-flange fascia. In terms of overall changes, he likes what the enhanced entry sequence did to Building E which he feels is an enhancement to the architecture. He likes the breakup in terms of the canvas awnings verses all steel trellises and thinks what they have now is a very cohesive project. Commissioner Mclntosh understands that they are trying to make a bigger statement for a potential tenant but the overall massing and composition seems a bit heavy. In the original proposal this had a nice layering and the proportions were really nice and now it feels too heavy in that corner. MR. GREENWOOD said they really studied that quite a bit and it was difficult when they first started looking at the two tower forms along the same elevation. To circumvent that they increased the height by 2' to help the proportion and believes there is enough separation between the two forms. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, Prest-Vuksic Architects, said at first he was reluctant to increase the height of the tower but was very pleasantly surprised as he saw it evolve. The towers at each corner are on a different scale, height and width and he feels good with the proportions. Commissioner McAuliffe said the Commission has discussed all the issues and his issues resonate purely on the detail. He understands the need to have the attention drawn to both of the tenants and it's a tough balance trying to give equal prominence. He thinks what they have done in elevation is not a fair representation. Given the choice between A and B he prefers A, but with the exception of adding the fins back in. Chair Van Vliet said what they are fighting with is that the applicant came in with a superior design and now a lot of detail has been taken off. MR. VUKSIC said you have to ask yourself if it had been like this originally would it be approvable. Commissioner Levin said the applicant did the exact same thing when they came in with Fresh Market. Value engineering should have taken place prior to the first submittal instead of bringing something in and then going back to redesign. Chair Van Vliet said Mr. Vuksic brings up a good G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 6 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL RE�`W COMMISSION `�+'' MINUTES February 10, 2015 point. If this was submitted like this originally we probably would have been happy with it. Commissioner Lambell pointed out that what this Commission is saying is that some of the detailing is gone and it is important that the detail be added back in. She made a motion to continue to reconsider the details removed from the plans. Commissioner Mclntosh made the second. Chair Van Vliet asked for further comments from the Commission. Chair Van Vliet said he would recommend adding the louvers back in. Commissioner Colombini said he likes how it has been presented and feels that it betters the neighboring properties. Commissioner McAuliffe said from his standpoint the comments made by this Commission are clear and reminded the applicants that they have already made some similar put backs in the other buildings. He asked MR. GREENWOOD if this was the extent of value engineering with respect to the design or were they anticipating another wave. MR. GREENWOOD said they are not anticipating anymore value engineering changes but they have some considerable deadlines in terms of construction and getting the plans submitted. Mr. Swartz reminded the Commission of a motion and a second for continuance and said if the motion fails then another motion can be considered. After some discussion, Commissioner Lambell withdrew her motion to continue and Commissioner Mclntosh concurred. ACTION: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to preliminarily approving subject to 1) reduction in the fins from seven to five shall be comparable to Fresh Market at the tower locations; 2) restore the eliminated awnings at the reduced projections; 3) the balance of the submittal shall move forward as proposed; and, 4) staff shall review and approve the final renderings. 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 absent. G:\Planning\JanineJudyV+RC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 7 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REV�fI�V COMMISSION � MINUTES February 10, 2015 2. CASE NO: MISC 14-434 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AP PALM DESERT VILLAGE LLC, 1856 Old Reston Avenue, Reston, VA 20190 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving two new office/retail buildings (13,772 sq. ft. and 16,080 sq. ft): University Village Office Park. LOCATION: 36-963 & 36-927 Cook Street ZONE: P.C.D. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was continued from the previous meeting for two new office/retail buildings within the University Village Office Park. At the previous meeting, comments were made about entering the center off Cook Street and the Commission wanted some prominent features there and suggested incorporating some of the retail design. He said the applicant decided to stay with the same theme and mimic the office and retail buildings currently in the complex. He presented the new elevations and explained the changes. MR. CHARLES CROOKALL, Project Manager, Shaw Properties, said they removed about 800 square feet of space at the� corner to open it up and created a couple of tower elements to match the tower elements on the retail component on Cook S�reet and Gerald Ford Drive. MR. GABRIEL LUJAN, Gabriel Lujan and Associates, presented color elevations for the Commission's review and said they studied the massing, added several elements, and incorporated two new colors from the corner buildings. MR. CROOKALL said they wanted to create a main street concept where you come in off Cook and go to the main parking area so that it would all flow. They are trying to tie it more into the retail element with color and features and try to get away from mimicking purely the office component. He said they also took advantage of the tower elements to provide screening of the mechanical units. MR. LUJAN said they removed all the windows from the original design and decided on storefront windows on both sides. G:\PlanningWanineJudyV+RC11Minutes12015\150210min.docx Page 8 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL RE�1N COMMISSION `'w�" MINUTES February 10, 2015 Commissioner Mclntosh said what is troubling is that this looks so much like a stage front and pointed out that this should read as masses versus U-shaped channels. The Commission discussed seeing the backside of the parapets and the return. Commissioner Vuksic said the rule of thumb to create a nice proportion is to go back two-thirds of whatever the width is. Commissioner Mclntosh said it is very two dimensional right now and suggested varying the height and design to lessen repetition. If they are trying to create a main street front then that typically is a variety of designs and not the same thing all the way down. The Commission and the applicant discussed the addition of decorative stone veneer, power elements, steel trellis elements, and color changes. MR. LUJAN said they removed the awnings and windows and went with full size storefronts giving it a retail look. Commissioner McAuliffe said the storefronts are the right move because whether it's office or retail those are much nicer windows than what they were proposing. Commissioner Vuksic said he is concerned when he looks at the retail side and sees a lot of repetition and to him this looks like the offices except it has bolder colors. It would be good if they brought that whole retail corridor together from the south end to the north end even if its office and they need to create more variety in forms. The Commission and MR. LUJAN discussed the screening of the mechanicals. Commissioner Vuksic said the mechanical screening looks like a series of inetal boxes that look like giant mechanical units themselves. Commissioner Mclntosh pointed out that they have the mechanical units on the highest point of the roof which makes the screening even taller. He suggested keeping the screening parapets lower and moving the roof top equipment to the front of the building where the roof is lower. Commissioner Mclntosh suggested they reconsider the awnings and thinks the awnings in the first submittal were a lot better looking than the plainness of the second submittal. He also suggested they keep the storefront windows for shade, relief, and character. After further design discussion, Commissioner Clark told the applicant that the Commission can't design this for them. He said this Commission has given a lot of suggestions and now it's something they have to think about. G:\Planning\JanineJudy�ARC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 9 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REV�r�V COMMISSION �' MINUTES February 10, 2015 ACTION: Commissioner Clark continued MISC 14-434 subject to: 1) break up the massing with a variety of different elements to lessen repetition; 2) design the buildings as retail to provide a cohesive flow throughout the center; 3) restore the awnings to help break up the buildings to provide a retail look; 4) keep the storefront windows; 5) increase the forms to give the building some pop; and 6) to keep the screening parapets lower, consider moving the roof top equipment to the front of the building where the roof is lower.. 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. 3. CASE NO: DA/CZ/PP 15-15/TT 36874 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PORTOLA PD, LLC, 73-081 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of preliminarily approving 112 residential condominium units including a club house and landscape plans; Retreat at Desert Willow. LOCATION: 38-400 Portola Avenue ZONE: P.R.-5 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this project, The Retreat at Desert Willow, is still in the review process but the applicant requested to come to the Commission to get some initial comments. He presented a PowerPoint of the 20-acre site and said it is part of Desert Willow. This project has 112 units which consist of 28 two-story buildings with each building maintaining four condos. He told the Commission if they feel comfortable with the plans they can recommend approval and the working drawings will come back for review. MR. VINCENT BARBATO, Family Development, said this product was built in Scottsdale, Arizona where they have the distinction of being the top selling community in all of Arizona. They are presenting it to Palm Desert because this piece of property has the same characteristics as the property in Scottsdale and the geographic benefits of this property is adjacent to the Desert Willow Golf Course. He explained the product and said the square footage is roughly 2,000 sq. ft. to 2,700 sq. ft. The finro-story buildings will have two units on the bottom and two on the top. There is a lot of articulation, movement on the roof heights, different architectural element heights to create a lot of interest, and a lot of setback to G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015N50210min.docx Page 10 of 12 � M ARCHITECTURAL RE�W COMMISSION ``�` MINUTES February 10, 2015 make the street scene pleasing. He said there are two different styles; Modern and Contemporary. He described the architectural styles of each unit and passed around the color schemes for the Commission's review. Solar and an elevator for the top units will be offered as an option. MR. TOM DOCZI, TKD Landscape Architects, said one of the overall goals in the design development of the site plan was to create as much movement throughout the project as possible. The streets have movement, the units themselves have various setbacks and all of the pathways and walkways that meander through the project connect to the various areas of the neighborhood in the central open space. The development of a club house area has a gathering space, exercise room, and lap pool. The entry will sit 6'/2' to 7' above an open space so you will drive in to a vista down over the recreation and open space area. Within that they have developed some terraced areas for landscaping, seating and conversation areas, and a meandering walkway that will work its way down to the pool. There will be a resort style pool with fire pits, cabanas, bocci ball courts, club house area, barbeque, spa and shaded patio areas. He described the different garden types; meditation, sensory, and butterfly. Along Portola they will create a heavy dense planting to buffer the street noise. In terms of materials and plant materials it will be compatible with the Desert Willow theme. The landscape will be low maintenance and low water use but at the same time will be colorful for year round interest. The materials for the walkways will be pavers along the street and in special locations to provide more interest. Commissioner Levin and MR. BARBATO discussed the garage setbacks and the on-street parking for the units with a short driveway. MR. RUDY HERRERA, Family Development, said the streets are 32' wide allowing for on-street parking. The Commission and the applicants discussed the emergency vehicle access. MR. DOCZI said the interior walks are designed at 4' wide and working with the Fire Department they will provide emergency access into the facility. The Commission reviewed and discussed solar, HVAC units, trash containers, the perimeter wall, mail delivery, wedged curbs, and the utility meters. MR. BARBATO stated the electrical meters will be in a utility closet and the gas meters will be on the sides of the units; four on one side. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the color schemes, the cement board siding, the corner treatments, the G:\Planning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2015\150210min.docx Page 11 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REV'�w�►V COMMISSION �' MINUTES February 10, 2015 fascia on the corner of the buildings, and the garage door styles. MR. BARBATO said each unit will have two garage door styles and explained that there will be various architectural elements that break up the line of sight so that it is not focused on four garage doors right next to each other. Commissioner Vuksic thought this was a pretty well developed package and feels good about it. He pointed out that there is so much going on in the elevations and referred to one spot to see how the elevation links to the floor plan and told the applicant to be careful as they move along. He advised them that when they are all done to make sure it looks like the elevations not the plan. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved to preliminarily approving. 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: VI. COMMENTS None VII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner Mclntosh, 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 3:00 p.m. ERIC CEJA, A OCIATE PLANNER SECRETARY � �'A I JU RDING SECRETARY G:\PlanninglJanineJudyWRCllMinules\2015\150210min.docx Page 12 of 12