Loading...
1999 12 08 ALRC Minutes MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 8, 1999 IO:OO a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:08 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank Reynolds. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 7, 1999. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members CunninghamlBobbitt to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 99-657; a request of RHL Design Group for USA Petroleum for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a gasoline facility with mini market and automated tunnel car wash located at the northwest comer fo Highway III and Dune Palms Road. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report and noted revised elevations were submitted prior to the meeting, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he did not see where the palm trees were listed on the plant list. Staff noted they were listed under groundcover. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIALRC12-8-99.wpd I Architectural & Landscape Review Committee December 8, 1999 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated the additional rear detail was an improvement with the windows and other design details. With regard to the towers he did not believe it was a problem. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that design wise the entry tower architecturally should predominate. The second tower is decorative and does not defme any entry or exit while the last defines the exit to the car wash. Because the building is only l4-feet high and the towers other than the entry tower, will be up to nine feet taller than the building, this will appear to be out of portion and unbalanced. They should be integrated into the whole design and not appear as if they are standing by themselves. Staff agrees with the new design as it integrates the two towers into the existing roof and leaves the entry tower as is which is fme because it is the focal of the design. Committee Member Cunningham started he liked the towers because a lot of the buildings along Highway III have the long plane loon and this breaks up that linear look. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the applicant's original design and believes it is an attractive building, but he understands staff s issue. 5. Mr. Jim Shively, Project Manager for USA Petroleum, stated they added detail to the rear elevation and although the towers are lowered it spreads the design out. Their challenge has been to give as much variation as possible under the City's ordinances. They believe the building should stretch and grow as much as possible. He understands staffs desire for a lower profile, but if you drop the towers down, it looks squatty. The tower adds interest. A compromise would be to retain one tower, the large tower, and lower the other for a lower profile. They are willing to do either suggestion. It is not their intention to violate the height regulations. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the pad elevation at the comer sits up fairly high and asked staff what the fmal grade would be. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it is six feet higher than the street and this will be an issue before the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending a drop in the pad height. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that with the height of the pad the building towers would be up too high. 7. Committee Member Reynolds stated the access off of Highway 111 is a concern to him. Staff stated it is a right in/right out and has been approved as part of the Specific Plan. 8. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the look of the towers, but if the building is to be constructed at the pad's current height, they will be too high. Staff stated a recommendation will made to the Planning Commission to require the pad height to be reduced. The Zoning Code for the Highway 111 Corridor allows 22 feet within 150 feet of the right of way. Committee C:\MyiJoCll!llents\WPDOCSIALRCI2-8-99.wpd n_~_ 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee December 8, 1999 prefer to see all three towers as it would add a little spice to the comer. The detail that has been added to the rear has resolved any issues with that elevation. 9. Committee Member Bobbit stated it depends on the final pad height. If the pad comes down, the towers can stay as proposed by the applicant. If the pad is going to remain at four feet above Highway III, then the towers should be lowered. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 99-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 98-657, subject to conditions as recommended with the deletion of Condition #1. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 99-661; a request of Canaday & Company for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units located on the north side of 48th Avenue, east of Caleo Bay Drive within Lake La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, .a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Roger Moore, representing the applicant, stated they had no objection to the conditions as recommended with the except of Condition # I. The new homes have a ten foot plate compared to the existing off-water plans which have an eight foot plate. In his opinion, it will look out of proportion with the existing. He believes the clipped gable-end is outdated. With the new roof line they pick up the feeling of the clipped gable roof. They can add a gable- end over the master bedroom at the rear to change the look, and/or a gable to the front to make it different on the front on the Plan 20 and 10. They do however, strongly object to the clipped gable. They are trying to create interior volume. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staffs recommendation could be accomplished without the clipped gable. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated the reason to use the clipped gable is that it was less costly. In the one plan there is a hip along the back. On the second .plan it takes care of itself. On the third plan the applicant's suggestion for the rear would solve units having the same problem. He then asked the applicant how close they are from the other houses with the clipped roof. Mr. Moore stated they are across the street from some. None of the water units have clipped gable roofs. The A vante units have a mix of both. The only conflict would be the units across the street. There are a total of 56 C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIALRCI 2-8-99.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee December 8, 1999 lots left for development of these plans. The first three lots off Adams Street would be the models. 5. Committee Member Cunningham received clarification that 56 lots would be built with the proposed three plans. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what staff would do with the proposed , roof type to achieve the clipped gable roof look. Staff showed examples. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated he did not see a problem in the development. Some of the units will have clipped gables and some will have the shap.e developed by the original developer as well as the other developers. He approves of the hipped roofs. He does agree that on the rear roof of the house it'should be more articulated. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that without something to look at it is hard to visualize the difference between the two. Discussion followed as to what the units would look like. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it would be a lot of work to change the plans. Staff stated Condition # 1 could be deleted. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 99-023 approving Site Development Permit 99-661, as recommended with the deletion of Condition #1. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members CunninghamlBobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on January 5, 2000. This meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m. on December 8,1999. Respectfully submitted, . ~/[lxLM?,~ T~ WYE~ Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIALRC12-8-99.wpd 4