Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-25 T CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 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 16 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair -X 14 2 Allan Levin X 16 Michael McAuliffe X 14 2 Jim McIntosh X 12 4 John Vuksic X -15 1 Open Position Also Present Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Nick Mellon!, Assistant Planner Mike Adkins, Code Compliance Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:2/27/18,4/10/18 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Rick Grandy, architect, presented revisions to the Casey site development (SW corner of Washington Street and Avenue of the States) for the Commissions review. The Commission reviewed the changes and Commissioner Vuksic felt they were moving in the right direction. Commissioner Lambell expressed to the applicant not to rely on landscape to deal with an architectural feature. r ARCHITECTURAL REViedV COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 11, 2018. Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the September 11, 2018 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Wet, and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: TT'37506/ PP 18-0005 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: UNIVERSITY PARK INVESTORS, 3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 180, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the subdivision of 170+ acres with approximately 1,100 dwelling units for the University Park project. LOCATION: Portola Avenue/ Gerald Ford Drive/ College Drive ZONE: P.R:18 Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal, Associate Planner, presented a consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission (PC) for approval of the University Park project. The project includes the . subdivision and development of a 170+ acre site with a mix of residential products totaling 1,070 dwelling units, several public park facilities, a trail system, and private recreational space. Residential product variation includes the following: 97 alley products, 72-4-Pac units, 110 2-Pac units, 345 single-family units in varying sizes, 110 townhomes and 336 multi-family apartments. This plan meets the intent of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) that provides eight (8) various housing products. Open space and recreational amenities are provided on site, and the development pattern includes: tree lined streets, shortened block length and pedestrian improvements that all comply with the goals of the UNSP. GAPIanningVanineJudyW tMlMInutest201W80925min.dou Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE:°.. N COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 MR. JOHN GAMLIN, Mission Valley Properties, introduced his design team and said they have all worked very hard to create a collaborative vision for this project, which is a shared vision between the design team and city staff. Their goal is to deliver a very high quality community that offers a lifestyle component, a host of amenities and preserves an attainable price. MS. DENISE ASHTON, Land Planner WHA Architects, talked about the vision of what University Park could be with the charm of the valley rooted in culture, an educational component next door, and a fantastic community with a focus on healthy living and what they will strive for in this community. She described a community that is affordable by design that can be attainable for people in the market place that hasn't been represented here. She described the plans with centralized amenities, parks sprinkled throughout, connectivity, and circulation. She went through the plans to show the grading plan, the entry pattern, a variety of colors, and a mix of housing. She described the location of each residential product type, the density, the locations of the rose and art walks, open spaces, and the pedestrian connectivity throughout the community. She presented to the Commission a Standards and Guidelines booklet that gives the City some assurances that their client and design team wants to keep as envisioned. MR. BOB WILHELM, Senior Principal Architect WHA Architects, said it has been a pleasure working with staff in formulating their project and they want to make sure the project is diverse, fun, realistic and attainable. He described the three styles; Modern Spanish, Boutique and Contemporary and said although the styles are primarily stucco in nature, in terms of the external material, they want to provide enough accent materials on the outside to give them a special feel and a testament to their,own style and purpose. He said the elevations are critical to the street scene and the success of the community and in order to create diversity they wanted to make sure that the entry experiences for all product types are going to be different, unique and personal. He presented the color schemes and floorplans for all the models, roof plans from hip, flat, shed to gable, and outdoor living spaces. He went through all the product types; alley products, 4-Pac units, 2=Pac units, single-family units, townhomes and multi-family apartments. He described the main entry, club house, pool and spas, kid's play area, fire pits, fitness facility, lap pools, pickle and bocce ball, cabanas, and an event lawn and barn. GAPIanningManine Judy\ARG\t Minules\2018\180925min.docx Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL RE'vir-rN COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 Mr. Ceja said for today's review he would like the Commission to focus on the architecture for the homes being proposed and suggested.that it may be faster and easier to go through each model one by one. Staff is hoping today or at another meeting to make a recommendation based on the architecture and allow the project to move on to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Levin and the applicants discussed the solar mandate and the different,types of roofs they are offering. MR. WILHELM said they are studying photovoltaics and how they will be applied for each model. Commissioner Levin asked about phasing the project. MR. GAMBLIN pointed out where they would start and finish the project, as well as the grading. He mentioned that they are a master developer and have several.builders to work with to develop finished dots. The time frame between the purchase of a finished lot by builder and going vertical is short. Commissioner Levin asked if the infrastructure expansion will work starting in the northwest area and moving their way south. MR. GAMBLIN discussed the well sites for the water district that are not yet installed and said everything works for phasing for sewer and water,as well as the retention areas. Every village stands on its own and there is some existing storm water retention that will get expanded, engineered, and designed to meet all the current standards. Chair Van Vliet asked about the builders who will come in with their own set of plans and designs. MR. GAMBLIN said their intent is that the builders will conform to the designs expressed in the Standards and Guidelines booklet they created. He stated that in the Development Standards they have a substantial conformance process. If the builders have made changes that have exceeded what is allowed,, then they would have to come back to this Commission. Mr. Ceja said staff emphasized this to the applicant regarding what happens when a developer comes back and wants to make changes after making horizontal improvements. Staff likes that the applicant put this booklet together and that the builders stick with these standards. The builders, can use the booklet to make minor tweaks but anything beyond that would have to come back to this Commission. Commissioner Vuksic asked if any minor tweaks G-Viannin9Vanine JudMRMI Minutes\201 8\1 80925min.docx Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REV.,—V COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 would come to staff for review and Mr. Ceja said if the changes are in line with this booklet, staff could handle this at a staff level and return for ARC review of construction drawings. Commissioner Levin and MS. ASHTON reviewed and discussed the grade issues and pedestrian and vehicular access. MS. ASHTON said the civil engineer has done a great job in working on the grade and the pedestrian linkages and walkways. MR. CHRIS HERMANN, Hermann Design Group, pointed out where the grade break occurs on the property, the amenities .sitting down lower, and the ADA access down into that area. Commissioner Lambell was concerned with the lack of recess in the windows on some of the models and stated there needs to be a change in plane to show shadow lines and not be dependent on paint or landscaping. Chair Van Vliet agreed that there are a lot of windows on the plans that are flush. MR. WILHELM addressed their concerns and said there may be some flush window conditions side to side between the homes. In most cases, they do have recessed windows and referred to the booklet that shows that. He said he won't rule out the flush conditions but they certainly won't be in an area where there is a visual concern. Commissioner Lambell discussed the locations of the mailboxes, trash enclosures, and utility meters and informed the applicant that the A/C units are required to be screened by the parapets. She also inquired about down spouts and roof drains. After a long discussion, MR. WILHELM said they will review the down spouts. She and the applicants talked about value engineering and asked Mr. Ceja how this can be monitored. Mr. Ceja said staff has changed their processes and stated that if there are changes they will return to the Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Vuksic referred to A1.12 and said all three of the elevations have this large rectilinear material and each one is a little different but all of them show a pretty large scale material and asked if that was accurate. MR. WILHELM said they will have maybe a limestone treatment, a travertine or something like that and won't be going down that concrete block road here. On the modules, there may be bigger pieces mixed in with smaller pieces with a variable pattern and feels it is important to go variable and not keep it precision. As they developed this further he'd like to see a variety. Commissioner Vuksic said there are some really interesting stone GAPlanningVanineJudMRG\1Mlnut s\2018\180925min.docz Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REvioW COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 patterns on Scheme 4 and 5 that he has never seen on production products. MR. WILHELM said that is more in line with what they will be doing. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the window systems on several of the elevations and said they need to be painted to match the vinyl so that it looks like part of the window system to achieve a richer look. He suggested they review the window systems on several models. Commissioner Vuksic suggested they increase the recess in the front elevations because he didn't feel that it was enough in some cases. In some models the windows off the bedrooms need thicker walls because the style calls for it. He informed the applicants that this Commission requires a thicker wall in the front possibly where they have corner windows. He feels it is not as important on the modern or contemporary'style. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the windows on the Spanish model that doesn't look thick enough. If they are punched on the front elevation; he suggested thickening it up about 8" to 12". This would apply more to front elevation characteristics and anything that would be related to the front right around the corners. Commissioner Vuksic was concerned about the apartments being too flat and asked if this project will be approved in phases. He suggested the apartments be continued because there are sections of wall with flush looking. windows that need a little bit more enhancement. Commissioner McAuliffe referred to the shed roof and parapet on the rear elevation that is landing in the same plane and said this creates an awkward visual transition. Commissioner McAuliffe said overall the elevation types have done really well in balancing the amount of body of materials versus accent. However, he referred to the Contemporary elevation 3C and said this elevation jumps out at him,because they have more accent materials than anything else. Commissioner McAuliffe referred to the Contemporary elevation 2C and said in all of the contemporary paint schemes this one seems to be the only really warm one in the whole plan. He said the colors GAPImningVanineJudy\AFC\1Minuws1201B\180925min.do= Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVmvi COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 don't bother him but that particular one seems to be an anomaly and suggested they review the color scheme for the contemporary models. Commissioner McAuliffe said the Contemporary elevation 3C is the only contemporary elevation with a gable roof scheme at the back and asked them to re-study that. Commissioner McAuliffe said the Contemporary elevation 2C seems to be another darker tone unit but also the window pattern in the little parapet detail is unique to this scheme and it seems out of place. He said there seems to be a strong theme that flows through each one of the architectural styles that in and of itself seems to be out of place. Commissioner McAuliffe also agreed with the comments regarding the flatness of the windows on the multi-family apartments and what jumps out to him are the large flat planes. He is concerned that when they get up to four stories this will really flatten out. Chair Van Vliet and the applicant reviewed and discussed street parking on both sides. Chair Van Vliet asked if they were putting the masonry walls between each unit ahead of time or would they allow the builders to put them in. MR.W ILHELM said there could be a mix from a timing prospective. Chair Van Vliet and MR. HERMANN reviewed and discussed the heights of retaining walls and how they will handle the grade differential that can be up to 12' on some of the lots. MR. HERMANN said there will be partial retaining walls on the lower lots but at this time they are just showing the 6' high screen walls that separate lots from the upper lots. Chair Van Vliet asked the applicant to be cognizant of where they place the HVAC equipment, condensers and utility locations. He suggested having as much architecture on the side walls and not just the front or back because some of the taller walls will be visible from the street side. He suggested getting more recess in the windows even on the interior units. He mentioned overhead shading elements on some of the windows and said there was a lot that doesn't have shading and to be cognizant of that as well. He also mentioned potential roof decks and said they need to detail that out and provide better guidelines. MS. ASHTON said they will review G1P1ann1ng\lan1ne JudMRC\1 M1nutes12018\180925m1n.dacx Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REvieW COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 shading elements. He referred to having internal spouts on the flat roofs for roof drainage. MR. WILHELM said their intention was to place them on the side yards and get it down on the inside corner so it's not on the face of the wall. The Commission and the applicant discussed this further. Chair Van Vliet pointed out the wood fascia and asked if that would be composite wood. MR. WILHELM said they are thinking a 3-by wood member and limiting the depth of them. He said they looked at composite and came to the consensus to stick with a 3-by fascia and emphasize the details differently depending on the style. Chair Van Vliet asked why they chose wood as opposed to a stucco detail. MR. WILHELM said they felt the look of that wasn't as crisp and clean as going with wood. Commissioner Lambell said with wood it is guaranteed to twist and tweak which will be a higher maintenance issue. MR. WILHELM asked the Commission if their recommendation was to go with a stucco system or a composite simulated wood product..Chair Van Vliet said it was their decision and said their use of wood is so minimal. The Commission and the applicant discussed this further. Commissioner Vuksic said on the Contemporary designs there are conditions where there are wood panels on the walls and plaster around them. He pointed out a few examples and said they are rendered as though it was recessed from the plaster on the other side of it and wanted to make sure they were recessed properly to come together. Commissioner Vuksic and MR. WILHELM reviewed and discussed the front elevation and the legs coming down to the ground and how the legs end up just floating on a thin platform. MR. WILHELM said they could do something with the wall above :the garage door to bring it forward to create more of a heavier platform. Commissioner Levin referred to the Tentative Map and said it seems incredibly tight getting in and out of the garages for the townhomes. The Commission and MS. ASHTON discussed garage turn-in issues and Commissioner Levin suggested they submit an auto turn and images for review. Commissioner Levin and MS. ASHTON reviewed and discussed individual water meters on the townhomes and the multi-family GAPIanningVanine Jud7MRC\1 Minutes\2018\180825min.do" Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REV^:�.V COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 homes. MS. ASHTON said they will review this and bring information to a future meeting. Commissioner McAuliffe and MS. AHTON revised and discussed the gas and electric meters. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to preliminarily approve with the exception of the apartments returning to ARC and subject to: 1) review of the window system on several models; 2) review architecture on the apartments specifically the legs on the rear elevations; 3) review color scheme for the Contemporary models; 4) review the shed roof for the Contemporary models (Plan 4C page A1.29) and how it interacts with some of the other elements; 5) review the wood elements on the Contemporary models (Plan 4C page A1.29) to ensure that the elements will be recessed; 6) thicken walls to recess windows; and 7) roof drains shall be internal. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and McIntosh absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic —9/18/18 Commissioner Vuksic reported the following from the September 18, 2018 AIPP meeting. Two murals were approved - one at the aquatic center and one at the Civic Center amphitheater; a call for artists went out for murals on San Pablo; the 2019 topic for Student Art and Essay will be My Special Memory; two artists were added to the Artist Registry; the docent program received three applications; a sculpture from the 2017/2018 El Paseo Exhibit will be placed at the corner of Portola Avenue and Haystack Road; and the First Weekend series begins on November 3'd with the fourth annual STREET event. VII. COMMENTS Mr. Ceja informed the Commission that Commissioner Brewer resigned from the Commission due to,relocating to San Diego. c:wiannmBUanmaauay\ARC\iMmu�s\zme\ieo92smm.ao" Page 9 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REvir-W COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2018 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at 3:15 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY JAM JUDYU R RDING SECRETARY G:\PlannhgWanlne JudyWRC\1 Wut9M2015\180925m1n.docx Page 10 of 10