Loading...
1998 10 20 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 October 20, ] 998 ]0:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who lead the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planners Fred Baker and Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. n. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff requested Business Item A be moved to the end of the agenda as the applicant was not present. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. There being no changes to the Minutes of September 14, 1998, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Site Development Pennit 98-633; a request ofTD Desert Development for approval of development plans for a golf clubhouse and cart storage facility within Rancho La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the infonnation contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Stacy Dawn, architect for the project, Bill Williams, Project Manager, both from WilliamslBlockstock Architects, Michael Hume, Rancho La Quint Project Director, Michael Horton, Landscape Architect, and Grady Sparks, Construction Manager for TD Desert Development, made a presentation on their proposal. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC 1 0-20-98. wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Meeting October 20, 1998 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the plans as they were in keeping with the current design at the Rancho La Quinta. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed on the architectural plans. Regarding the landscaping he also agreed the plans were in keeping with the current site and he had no objections. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members CunninghamlBobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-006 recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 98-633 as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 98-634: a request of Rielly Homes, Inc. for approval of architectural plans for six new prototype residential units. 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. Staff noted the landscape plans had not been submitted and would have to be submitted to the Committee at a later date. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he appreciated the plans as presented. He questioned staff as to whether the garage was slightly smaller that what was allowed. It was his understanding they would have to conform to the current development standards. Staff stated this was true. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the proposed sideyard setbacks were. Staff stated they were 10 and 5 feet. 3. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing the applicant, stated he had a question on the Conditions of Approval in regard to Plan 1. He clarified that it had been mislabeled on the plans and it was not envisioned to be a Casita, but will be a golf cart space. It is not an optional bedroom to the Casita. In regard to the Condition for Plans 3 and 4, he asked if they could modifY the plan by adding a door in the foyer and removing a portion of the wall internally. This would then allow enough room in the garage to accommodate a compact car. Staff stated the ordinance requires the garage to be lOX 20 feet in size. It does not provide any flexibility to vary the size unless the specific plan were amended. 4. Committee Member Bobbit asked if the Casitas unit would always be deemed as a bedroom. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the Uniform Building Code regulations stipulates it will always be considered a bedroom and this is what triggers the extra garage for a four bedroom house. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC I 0-20-98.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Meeting October 20, 1998 5, Mr. Haag asked if the landscape plans would go to the Planning Commission as well, Staff stated this was correct 6. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff what their action should be. Staff stated it could be a recommendation for approval as modified by the Committee Members. Committee Member Cunningham stated it was an excellent proposal and he had no objections. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the common ground area was part of the association or homeowner responsibility. Mr. Haag stated it was unknown at this time. He speculated it would follow the format that was adopted with the KSL Merchant Builder past history, i.e., courtyard areas can be either homeowner maintained or if they have a more open approach that can be an impact to the association as a whole, it will become the responsibility of the homeowners' association. Discussion followed regarding the responsibility of the courtyard area. 8. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 98-007 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 98-634 subject to the following modifications to the conditions: a. Condition #2 modified to remove Plan I. b. Adding a condition that the proposed floor plans delete any reference to a Casitas on Plan I. Unanimously approved. C. Village Use Permit 98-001; a request of JTL Property, Inc., James Lewis, for approval of development plans to remodel and construct a 1050 square foot addition to a 2,438 square foot existing building for use as a day spa and beauty salon. I. 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. James Lewis, representing JTL Property, Inc., stated he had some concerns regarding the conditions relating to the east elevation facing the parking lot. His concern was that this side of the building was to be used primarily for the spa operation and usually dictates a dark environment. To add windows is contrary to the nature of the business. They would not object to a mural or some type of architectural treatment C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC1 0-20-98. wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Meeting October 20. 1998 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed with staffs recommendation that some treatment was needed. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that due to the sensitivity ofthe masseuse issue, staff was recommending a glass block window treatment Mr. Lewis stated this was a very expensive idea. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated his concern was that landscaping can tend to be temporary. He could understand not wanting to go to the expense of installing a window, but some type of hard structure was needed. In addition, he needed to keep in mind the Village theme. Staff stated it should be designed for pedestrian traffic. Discussion followed as to possible alternatives for the east elevation. 5. Mr. Lewis stated they wanted to create a gated parking lot to eliminate the problem of the parking lot being used as a street by the tenants of the apartments. They intended to increase and add to the landscaping, but did not want to go structurally into the building at this time. 6. Staff asked if the plastering would be altered. Mr. Lewis stated they did not intend to at this time. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why staff was wanting the glass block added. Staff stated to give more relief to the exterior. Mr. Lewis discussed the changes they were proposing for the exterior of the building. 8. Committee Member Cunningham made several suggestions that could be used to add architectural treatment to the elevation. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how the landscaping would be maintained after the business was open. Mr. Lewis stated a contractor would be hired to maintain the site. Discussion followed regarding the east property line which had a problem of being unsightly. Mr. Lewis stated he would like to build a wall between the two lots ifhe does not purchase the lot and incorporate it into his site. 10. Committee Member Cunningham asked about staffs recommendation for a trellis over the entrance. Mr. Lewis stated they were considering some fountains and eliminating the steps. He also stated they were using very massive doors to create a statement at the entrance. Discussion followed regarding alternatives to the entry area. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the existing windows that faced Eisenhower Drive. Mr. Lewis stated they would stay as they are. 12. Committee Member Cunningham asked if treatment would be added to the west side elevation and wrap around to the north elevation to soften the C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRCI 0-20-98.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Meeting October 20, 1998 appearance. Mr. Lewis stated they would incorporate continuity from the other elevations including windows on the north elevation. Staff suggested surrounds be used on the existing and proposed windows. 13. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-008 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 98-001 for architectural plans with staffs recommendations and an entry statement treatment being added to Condition #6. D. Site Development Permit 97-632; a request of Century Crowell Communities for approval of architectural plans for four new prototype residential units. I. 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. Committee Member Cunningham asked about the compatibility issue. Staff stated they were recommending variety in the proposed roof design all consisting of a side facing gable having a single ridge line. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if two story units would give enough relief to the roofs that staff was wanting. Staff stated the applicant is not planning to build any two story units. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated two story units do not sell in the desert, and the City does not want to dictate the market. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern was that if two story units exist now and if this tract does not have any, this alone can affect the streetscape. Also, if they state they are going to construct the two story units and then change their mind due to the market demand, it could create a problem. Staff stated it is easier to require the roof line changes in height than to require two story units. 5. Staff reviewed the conditions with the Committee. Following discussion it was determined the height of each of the prototypes would be required to be varied to between 18-22 feet. Alternatives were discussed as to how the roof line could be varied. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated that to require a change in the roof line was asking for a major constructural change. Clipping the gable ends and asking for a variation in height of the roof is enough unless there are other prototypes that are available for the developer to draw from. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRCl 0-20-98.wpd 5 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Meeting October 20, 1998 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-009 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-632 to the Planning Commission with the conditions as recommended and modified as follows: a. The entry element of Plan 4 for both elevations "A" and "B" shall be raised a minimum of one foot on the ridge. b. One prototype plan for both elevations "A" and "B" shall have clipped gables for the main roof. c. Each prototype for both elevations "A" and "B"shall vary in height between 18 to 22 feet. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: VI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on November 16, 1998. This meeting was adjourned at 10:46 a.m. on October 20, 1998. C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIALRCIO-20-98.wpd 6