Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A - ARC_Staff Report PDD 2024-0007 6-16-25 v2ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 16, 2025 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: A REQUEST BY WOODBRIDGE PACIFIC GROUP, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO CONSTRUCT TWENTY-FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 60-FOOT-WIDE LOTS IN THE PHASE 2 SECTION OF THE MIRALON DEVELOPMENT (CASE PDD-2024- 0007 / 5.0982 PD 290, TRACT #31848, LOTS 112 - 136 (KL). FROM: Department of Planning Services PROJECT SUMMARY: Miralon is a Planned Development District (“PDD”) originally approved by the City Council on May 5, 2004 and amended November 2, 2016. The project is located on the north side of the city as shown in the attached vicinity map. The entire project is comprised of roughly 309-acres and a total of 1,150 dwelling units. The project includes 752 single-family dwellings, 398 multi-family dwellings, common amenities and open space. Several years ago, the entire project was subdivided and sold off to individual developers, each of whom are developing a portion of the overall Miralon project. This specific portion of Miralon is comprised of 25 one and two-story dwelling units on 60- foot-wide lots, all of which take vehicular access from an internal private street (Monroe Drive). Roughly half the homes back onto North Indian Canyon Drive, a major thoroughfare on the City’s General Plan Circulation Map. The ARC will review the architecture and landscape to confirm that this Final PD is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary PD approved by City Council in 2016, including the Miralon Design Guidelines and the Miralon Vision Book (Pursuant Zoning Code Section 94.03.00.) RECOMMENDATION: That the Architectural Review Committee adopt the attached ARC resolution approving the proposed Final Planned Development, revised as outlined in the fourteen architectural conditions of approval, as being in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Planned Development district approved by the City Council in 2016, including the Miralon Design Guidelines and the Miralon Vision Book, subject to all conditions of approval in Exhibit “A”. Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 2 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 ISSUES AND CONCERNS: The Miralon Development Design Guidelines meticulously articulate the characteristics of Desert Modern Architecture as expressed in the work of Mid-century architects Cody, Wexler and Legoretta, yet most of the units in this application bear little resemblance to the work of these master architects. Important characteristics noted below from the Design Guidelines are not present in most of the home types. Cody and Wexler-inspired variants: • Long, low horizontal proportions, • Post and beam construction in primary living spaces with ceilings raised to the underside of the roof structure, • Simple uncomplicated volumes, floor plans, and roof forms, • The use of clerestory windows, • Deep canopies, cantilevered roofs and expansive use of glass, • Light gage steel post and beams, Legoretta-inspired variants: • Simple volumes that have dramatic variations in roof height and asymmetric placement of windows and doors. Staff reviewed the proposed designs, carefully referencing the Design Guidelines and provided detailed recommendations for each of the 14 architectural conditions to help the applicant bring the project into successful conformance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The twenty-five (25) single family home lots and associated streets and landscape that comprise this Final PDD application are located in Phase 2 - on the westerly side of the Miralon development (see map below). Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 3 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: The General Development Standards (lot size, setbacks, building height, etc.) for the entire Miralon development were outlined in Table 3 of the City Council Resolution #24126, dated November 2, 2016 and page 9 of the Miralon Design Guidelines. For the 60-foot-wide single family lots, the development standards on pages 18 and 19 of the Guidelines also apply. These consist primarily of lot size, dwelling size, setbacks, lot coverage, and the like. The Planning Commission found that the project conforms to these development standards. SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. In addition to the development standards noted above, in 2016, the City Council imposed specific conditions on the architecture of the entire Miralon project. These can be found on pages 1 through 5 of the Conditions of Approval attached to City Council Reso #24126 (Attachment “F” of this packet.) This project was evaluated by staff for conformance with these conditions of approval in the following table. Specific Conditions of Approval from the Preliminary PDD that apply: Condition No./ Requirement: Conforms? PC 18. Four-sided Architecture. Architectural detailing & materials shall be consistent on all four sides of the residences. Variations in wall planes, external expression of structural elements, shading devices or other similar details may be employed to break up large wall plane expanses as appropriate Does not conform. • Architectural detailing on side and rear elevations lack the same level of detail seen on the fronts. • Provide more solar control at larger fenestration. • All homes have at least one side yard that is 5 feet wide facing a 5’-6” wall. Where this narrow yard occurs, greater architectural articulation seems unnecessary. • Where side and rear yards are greater than 5 feet, architectural articulation should be of equal quality to that of the front elevations. PC 20 Exterior Door/Window Design Standards. Windows & door openings should take advantage of views, minimize reflectivity, solar absorption, glare and nighttime light emission and minimize overlook between residences. Large panes of glass are preferred. Trapezoidal clerestory windows that take Does not conform. • Windows are generally small and do not extend up to the ceiling level or down to the floor. • Integrate clerestory windows with head heights at the underside of the roof framing that would create a sense of greater interior spaciousness, allow light, privacy, and upper views. • Where bedroom windows face a street or entry courtyard (example Bedroom 3 on Plan 4), clerestory windows (or elimination of these Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 4 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 their shape form the adjacent sloping ceiling and roof are permitted. Large windows with edges at or near the floor and/or ceiling and sliding glass doors opening from main living areas are recommended. windows) would again provide better privacy between public / private spaces. PC 21 Window / Door openings. Exterior window & door openings shall have a minimum 4-inch recess for consistency with the design characteristics. Unable to confirm. This condition remains. PC 22 Exterior Finish Materials. Exterior walls should be simple, refined compositions that firmly ground the building to the site. Does not conform. • Several elevations need further simplification. • Consistently thin fascia depths are needed (Wexler & Cody variants). • Simplify blocking. • Establish consistent fascia depths along the long sides of the homes. • Group (or mull) disparate sized windows / doors together. • Reduce the 10-foot-high exterior wall framing and eliminate the 10-foot ceilings. • Instead, establish minimum ceiling heights of 9- feet for flat roof models, allowing increased height in primary living spaces and minimum 8-feet for sloped roof homes while also allowing interior ceilings to increase in height to the underside of the roof framing to make the homes appear better “grounded”, more horizontal, less top-heavy, more spacious in the interiors and to reduce material costs. • Lower ceilings to 8’ in closets, corridors, utility areas, and kitchens can accommodate ductwork.) Example: Fascia depths on the side elevation of Plan 3B (Legoretta-inspired) do not align. Increasing the height of ceilings to around 12 feet for interior public space (living / dining / great rooms) to achieve greater differentiation between primary and secondary volumes and slight (i.e. 1 foot) shift in exterior wall Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 5 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 plane especially along the side elevations would better distinguish the various volumes. PC 25 Groundcover Crushed “Mojave Gold” min.3/8” no DG Conforms COA 26: The conditions of approval on City Council Resolution #24126 on page 10 denotes: “No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any façade on the proposed buildings which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas.” Does not conform. • All surface mounted downspouts on the sides of the units must be placed within the wall cavities. In addition to basic development standards, the preliminary PDD adopted “meticulously scripted and scrutinized design guidelines” as noted on page 6 under the heading “Architecture”. These design guidelines seek to set the homes at Miralon apart from other products in the marketplace and to ensure that the architectural vision for Miralon has been met – that is, the proposed residences embody and clearly express the Desert Modern architectural aesthetic established in the mid-twentieth century by local architects William Cody and Donald Wexler, as well Mexican architect Ricardo Legoretta, who also produced a body of architecture suited for the desert climate. 1 ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE MIRALON DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE MIRALON VISION BOOK: As noted on page 6 of the Guidelines: “Miralon takes its aesthetic cues from the vibrant modern architectural heritage of Palm Springs. Architects have designed sleek modern homes (here) since the 1920’s. Notable for its clean lines, expansive use of glass, applications of natural and manufactured materials and indoor / outdoor relationships… the style grew out of the architects’ varied use of modern construction techniques, inventive materials and new technologies and served a progressive clientele.” As required by the Guidelines, the applicant has established three exterior architectural variations: 1 Although Legoretta (1931 – 2011), a Mexican architect, had no architectural commissions in Palm Springs, his designs, inspired by another Modernist Mexican architect, Luis Barragan, were based on simple geometric volumes, clean lines, bright colors, hidden light sources, and deepset fenestration that protected the openings from the intense desert sun – characteristics harmonious with the desert modern architecture that developed in Palm Springs at the middle of the twentieth century. Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 6 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 “A: Cody-inspired”, “B: Wexler-inspired”, “C: Legoretta-inspired”. The massing and detail and visual form of the proposed homes are intended to reflect the work of these architects and the tenets of “Palm Springs Desert Modern architecture” that have made Palm Springs internationally renowned. ACTION AND DIRECTION TO THE ARC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION At its April 7, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions (Resolution attached). The conditions included fourteen Architectural Conditions requiring the applicant to revise the design of the proposed residences to conform to the architectural vision articulated in the Miralon Design Guidelines – specifically that the residences embody and clearly express the Desert Modern architectural aesthetic established in the mid twentieth century by architects William Cody, Donald Wexler and Ricardo Legoretta. The Commission directed that a subcommittee comprised of one Planning Commissioner and two members of the ARC work meet with staff and the applicant to provide recommendations to revise the design of the homes to better reflect the Desert Modern characteristics of those three architects as articulated in the Miralon Design Guidelines. The subcommittee met on April 27, 2027. The applicant submitted revised designs on May 20, 2025. Following are the fourteen Architectural Conditions of Approval followed by Staff’s assessment of the design revisions for consideration by the ARC: ARC 1. From PC 18 – Four-sided Architecture: Where side and rear yards are greater than five (5) feet, architectural articulation should be of equal quality to that of the front elevations. The detailing in these areas must be further developed to conform. Does not conform. Side and rear elevations generally remain less developed than front elevations. • Add solar control devices on the sides of all units at large windows and glass doors, • Provide slight offsets (e.g. +/- 1 foot) on side elevations related to the cubic massing and greater roof/parapet heights on the side elevations of Legoretta variants. ARC 2. From PC 20 – Exterior Door / Windows. Where double-hung windows are proposed that face a masonry wall five feet away, eliminate the 10-foot ceilings and instead use clerestory windows with head heights at the underside of the roof framing to create a greater sense of interior spaciousness, allow light, maintain privacy, and afford upper views. Where bedroom windows face a street or entry courtyard use clerestory windows to provide better privacy control between public / private spaces. Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 7 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 Does not conform.. Double hung windows were changed to slider windows. • Integrating clerestory windows, • Eliminating the 10-foot ceilings was not done. Staff recommends these revisions be done to achieve conformance with this condition. ARC 3. Improve the exterior aesthetic on those units that back onto Indian Canyon Drive by elimination of the 10-foot ceilings and utilization of clerestory windows that will also enhance the spaciousness of rooms and provide opportunity for views toward the western mountains. Extend the eaves beyond the 1’ limit imposed by the Design Guidelines to give solar protection on the west elevations and better reflect the deepset eaves of Cody and Wexler’s designs. (See examples below.) Does not conform. • Incorporate clerestory windows in certain areas, • Extend the eaves off the rear elevation by several feet, • Lower the top plates on the wall framing and • Raise ceilings to the underside of the roof framing (ductwork, and other utilities can be placed above lower ceilings in corridors, closets, kitchens, utility rooms and wnere necessary, the use of soffits). BELOW SIMULATED VIEW OF THE BACK OF THE HOMES FROM INDIAN CANYON DRIVE (BEHIND THE 7.8 FOOT HIGH GARDEN WALL. CODY, WEXLER, LEGORETTA DESERT MODERN CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT PRESENT. ARC 4. From PC 22 – Simple refined compositions, firmly grounded. Simplify elevations using consistency thin fascia depths (Wexler & Code-inspired variants), simplify the blocking on all variations by aligning them. Eliminate false chimney / fireplace elements, group together disparate sized windows & doors. Reduce the 10- foot-high wall framing to 9-feet for flat roof models and 8-feet for sloped roof homes and allow interior ceilings to slope with the underside of the roof rafters to create spacious interiors. Roof insulation can then be placed between the rafters to preserve the thin roof edge profile and ductwork can then be run above corridor, closet and kitchen ceilings or in soffits where necessary. Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 8 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 Does not conform. • The recommendations given above regarding COA PC 22 and ARC 3 regarding Plan 3B would help achieve conformance with this condition, • Returning the fascia by the left side of the entry gate down to the ground as was done by the left side of the garage would achieve greater cohesiveness on the front elevation of Plan 3B. (see below.) On Plan 1A and 1B models and other plan types: • Integrate the beam ends emulating post and beam construction that are shown on the “AX” models on all appropriate parts of the façades. • Remove the “chimney” right of the garage door. • The beam ends shown at the bedroom (right) need to be continued at the garage and, as appropriate, on side and rear elevations to strengthen the visual association with Cody & Wexler of post and beam construction. (Page 25 and 27 of the Guidelines) Below: Conformance can be achieved by • Squaring off and simplify the massing and volume at the corner by bedroom #3 to provide more space for the bathroom, • Eliminate superfluous blocking on the front wall, • Extend the roof and “front porch roof” over to the corner and return it at the same plane as the side fascia. ARC 5. Mass & Scale. Further simplify the volumetric form of the homes to achieve the sleek clean lines and simple, uncomplicated exterior design as noted in the Design Guidelines. The strength of mid-century architectural designs of Cody, Wexler and Legoretta were found in their elegant simplicity. Square off 45-degree angled walls to reduce complicated framing and simplify roof forms; use consistent thin fascia depths (Wexler & Cody inspired variants). As the Design Guidelines clearly note, Wexler & Cody typically used a standard (post and beam) structural grid or module in organizing the interiors of their homes. Applying a standard structural module to these homes would contribute to better consistency with the mid-century Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 9 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 architects from which they are intended to take design inspiration and provide opportunities to simplify the interiors by removing unnecessary and often conflicting walls and doors (especially at bathrooms) which should in turn reduce construction costs and contribute to simpler massing and greater spaciousness. Does not conform As discussed in the working session: • Squaring off the 45-degree angled walls in Plan types 1 to be similar to Plan types 2 will help simplify the roof form, simplify construction and help these plan types achieve conformance with the Cody/Wexler/Legoretta characteristics in the Design Guidelines. • Simplifying Unit “B” by eliminating the gap at the front gable and lowering the roof pitch would also help these unit types conform. • The heavy pilaster (“chimney”) at the right side of the garage can be removed. The Miralon Design Characteristics on pages 25 and 27 for the Wexler and Cody variants specifically state “Post and beam construction at primary living spaces.” None of the Wexler / Cody variants in this project incorporate this important design characteristic. Doing so would help bring these units into conformance. ARC 6. On Legoretta-inspired units, allow the volume and massing of the rooms to create the cubic volumes typical of his work, rather than superfluous blocking and heavy fascias. (See example below.) Does not conform. The front elevations have been improved with increased parapet heights at the entry, however the slde elevations remain flat. • Increasing the ceiling heights at the living/dining/great rooms to 12 feet and providing slight offsets in the side walls (i.e. +/- 1 foot) would help the better express the volumentric composition of these dwellings, helping them conform. • At the rear elevation of Plan 2c, rather than symmetrically framing the sliding door with the blocking, creating a more asymmetrical “bump-out” volume with a slightly greater height would better reflect aesthetic of Legoretta on this elevation and provide more solar control to the large window. (examples below right: offsetting the deepset fenestration/door rather than centering it). Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 10 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 ARC 7. Mass & Scale. On units with sloped roofs, remove the 10-foot ceilings, reduce the 10-foot top plate to 8 or 9 feet and let the ceilings follow the roof slope. Integrate clerestory windows to achieve greater interior volume and spaciousness. Lowering the roof pitch on sloped roofs would also achieve massing and scale more consistent with the mid-century work of Code & Wexler. Insulation can be achieved between the rafters running above the post and beam structure and ductwork can run above corridor ceilings, closets, utility and kitchens and through the use of soffits where necessary. In general, the ten-foot ceiling heights in these homes cause the massing to have a rather awkward, vertical or top-heavy appearance. There are sloped roofs in many of the unit types, but none of the homes take advantage of the increased interior room height possible by removing the flat, 10-foot ceilings and allowing the ceilings to follow the roof slope. Sloping ceilings are a much-desired feature in Cody & Wexler’s’ mid-century homes because they achieve spacious interior volumes without the added material costs. (see example below.) Does not conform. Roof pitches, 10-foot top plates, flat ceilings instead of sloping ceilings with the roof plane have not improved. The Design Guideline characteristics for the Wexler & Cody variants denote “Long Low, horizontal proportion”. • Lower the top plates as noted above. • Lower the pitch of the gabled roofs on all plan types. • Change to clerestory windows in locations as previously noted. • Conceal ductwork and utilities above lowered ceilings in kitchens, hallways, utility rooms, closets, bathrooms, and provide soffits elsewhere where necessary. ARC 8. Mass & scale. Use clerestory windows above standard height doors & windows up to the underside of the roof framing, and/or bump up the roof rafters in the living room areas to around 12 feet and allow the surrounding roof height to be 9 feet, allowing adequate roof depth for insulation and ductwork. (See example below.) Does not conform. Plan type 1AX, 1BX, 2B, the rear of Plan 3B, and 4B have been vastly improved with the integration of clerestory windows and sloped ceilings. • Incorporate these details into the other units to achieve conformance with the Design Guidelines. ARC 9. Clear expression of Desert Modern Architecture. Double hung windows were not used in mid-century homes designed by Wexler & Cody. Instead use casement, awning or sliding windows. Where windows face a concrete block privacy wall between units and / or where views are available, but privacy is desired, employ clerestory windows in which the head of the window aligns with the ceiling rather than Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 11 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 narrow slot windows. Again, insulation can run between the roof rafters supported on beams and ductwork can run above corridor, closet, utility room, and kitchen ceilings and where necessary, in soffits. Does not conform. Double-hung windows have been changed to casements & sliders. • Where privacy between sides of units is needed or where such fenestration adjustments would enhance views of the mountains, use clerestory windows up to the underside of the roof framing. ARC 10. Clear expression of Desert Modern Architecture. False Features. Remove all the false chimneys. Where false beam ends are proposed to give the illusion of a post and beam structure, be sure there’s a solid wall (not a window) below the beam. Does not conform. • Remove the “chimney blocking” at the front of Plan 3C, the blocking right of the garage door in unit 1AX, and the blocking left of the garage door in Plan A. • Shift the dominant height on the back elevation of Plan 1C from the roof of the patio to the living/dining/great room areas and allow the patio roof to be much thinner and lower. ARC 11. Massing & Scale. On models with covered front patios for the front-loaded pools, carry the accent material (i.e. Shadowblock or other) to the underside of the patio roof for privacy and belter balance and massing on the front elevation rather than the half-height “ponywall”. Does not conform. The screen wall has been slightly increased in height. • Raise the screen wall fully to the underside of the patio roof as recommended. • Lower the slope of the roof over the garage. (See example below.) ARC 12. Clear expression of Desert Modern Architecture. On Cody & Wexler-inspired variants: continue the thin fascias on both homes and patio roofs, use steel structural elements where necessary to achieve this as noted in the listed characteristics of Wexler’s design aesthetic in the Design Guidelines. Extend the eaves beyond the posts on patio roofs to accentuate the horizontality of the Cody and Wexler-inspired variants. Design guidelines limiting such projections to one foot can and should be set aside when it further strengthens the mid-century character of horizontality and scale of the architecture, especially on front and rear elevations. (see example below.) Does not conform. Several plan types still have fascias at patio roofs thicker than those Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 12 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 on the dwelling and fascia edges that mis-align with the fascia on the dwelling. (Plan 2A, 3A, 4A). • Extend the fascias on patio roofs. • Extend eaves on front and rear elevations. • Use steel to achieve structural thinness as noted in the Design Guidelines. ARC 13. Massing concern: Two-story units (Plan type 4). The massing of these units in all three design variations is out of character with typical low-profile, Palm Springs mid-century “Desert Modern” architecture of Cody & Wexler. The massing appears top-heavy. More than half of the bulk of this two-story plan type is caused by an unusually tall two-story living room. Revise the roof over the two-story living room to slope downward toward the back of the home to achieve better overall horizontal massing and consistency with Desert Modern architecture and provide better human scale while also eliminating hard to reach windows. Does not conform. Following the subcommittee meeting, applicant slightly sloped the roof over the two-story living room, however Plan type 4 continues to appear top-heavy and inconsistent with the long, low horizontal proportions expressed in the Design Guideline characteristics. • Revise the living room ceiling from a tall, two-story flat ceiling to a sloped ceiling, perhaps with clerestory windows over the lower windows and an extended roofline to better shield the large windows from easterly sun (example below). ARC 14. Landscape. Due to the extremely windy conditions at the project site the provide the following alternative tree choices: (1) Casuarina (Australian Pine) in lieu of the Jacarandas, and (2) Dalbergia (Indian Rosewood) in lieu of the Desert Museum Palo Verdes. Conforms as conditioned. Buffers and Open Space: The project will include the installation of five-foot high tubular steel fencing with gates painted dark brown-black at the rear yards leading to open space/exclusive use easement areas. The side, and rear yard areas will have 5’-6” high concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls. The front and corner walls will have 6x6x16 precision block walls in stacked bond pattern 5’-6” in height, all of which conforms to the Miralon Vision Book. The perimeter masonry wall along North Indian Canyon Drive is noted to be 7.8 feet in height in the preliminary PDD. Conforms. Architectural Review Committee Staff Report Page 13 of 13 Case PDD-2024-0007 – Miralon 25 Homes – Woodbridge Pacific Group June 16, 2025 CONCLUSION: Staff believes by incorporating the recommendations in this report, this Final PD should be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary PD, subject to conditions. PREPARED BY: Ken Lyon, RA, Principal City Planner REVIEWED BY: Anthony Riederer, Assistant Director of Planning Services REVIEWED BY: Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Draft ARC Resolution and Conditions of Approval C. Miralon Design Guidelines D. Miralon Vision Book Excerpts E. Planning Commission Resolution 6980 F. City Council Resolution 24136 G. Justification Letter H. Exhibits / Plans / Perspectives, etc. I. Public Integrity Disclosure Form