Loading...
2000 10 18 ALRC Minutes Special Meeting MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 18, 2000 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 11 :08 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank Reynolds. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Management Analyst Britt Wilson, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Committee Member Reynolds asked that the date of the Minutes for approval be changed to October 4, 2000. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Reynolds/Bobbitt to confirm the agenda as corrected. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 4, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Cunningham to approve the minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Commercial Prooertv Imorovement Proaram 2000-002; a request of David Cetina, EI Ranchito Mexican Restaurant for review of a funding request to construct a front patio cover and new concrete. 1. Management Analyst Britt Wilson and Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. C:IMy DocumentslWPDOCSIALRCl 0-1 8-00.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 2. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had gone through all the material and criteria contained in the staff report and to him it did not appear the Historic Preservation Commission had followed the rules. The slope of the patio cover on the one building is incongruous to what is there. It they try to match the roof lines with the cover it will be a disaster. If built the way it is shown, the owner will have to put up a rain gutter as it is sloped right into the entrance. 3. Commissioner Bobbitt stated the patio cover is an open lattice. He agrees that the slope of the patio cover on the right side of the building and the post treatment are not appropriate, which were the two issues raised at the last meeting. From an architectural standpoint it would look better to have a flat roof. He asked staff where the idea came from to slope the patio cover. He understood the owner's original design was to have a flat roof. . 4. Commissioner Cunningham stated that if this had come before the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPCl, and the ALRC reviewed it architecturally and then moved to approve the funds, hopefully changes could have been made to the architecture. What happened was the HPC had voted on this design and the ALRC did not want to hold the applicant up nor disagree with another Commission, therefore the ALRC continued it to allow staff time to provide the ALRC with information. He apologized for the time it was taking, but the Committee wants to make the process work for this grant and future grants. The Committee is suggesting that it be given a rated, but go on record that they do not agree with the architecture. The goal being to work with applicant to move the project along, but put their comments on record. Staff suggested the Committee could grade it and staff will relay the Committee's comments on to the HPC and they can accept the information and if they chose to they can change their recommendation. 5. Commissioner Bobbitt asked if any buildings that did not have to be reviewed by HPC would come directly to the ALRC. Staff stated that was correct. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he also did not want to hold this up or withhold the funds as they do deserve the funds, but would like to know how this idea to tilt the patio cover up came from, as it does detract from the existing building. C:IMy DocumentsIWPDOCSIALRCIO-18-00.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 6. Committee Member Reynolds stated it is in conflict with the Secretary of Interior State Guidelines as stated. 7. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they could meet with the HPC to discuss this. 8. Management Analyst Britt Wilson stated the Council receives copies of the minutes and staff could relay any concerns of the Committee. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if that is it and it is fully approved by the HPC and City Council, why is it before this Committee? Staff stated for approval of the funding request. Management Analyst Wilson stated it is difficult to separate the review of the architecture and approval of the funding, but that is the way the Ordinance is set up. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the Mr. Cetina had been going through the approval process for the patio cover when the funding became available. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern that the applicant is stuck in between the HPC and ALRC. 10. Mr. Cetina asked if he could take it back to the HPC. Management Analyst Wilson stated yes, he could resubmit his application. 11. Committee Member Cunningham asked Mr. Cetina what he would like to do. Mr. Cetina stated he wanted the structure to be flat with the tile work, but the HPC did not want the tile so they went to the lattice. Committee Member Cunningham stated the ALRC agrees that it should be flat to work with the posts, slump stone columns and trellis. If they would deny it, would it have to go back to the HPC, Council and then back to the ALRC? Staff stated yes. Committee Member Cunningham stated this change would be here for a long time and is a major part of its appearance and the ALRC feels strongly that the architecture is wrong. Staff stated the recommendation is for funding not architectural approval. If the application does not meet the point system the applicant can resubmit to the HPC, Council, and ALRC. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it seems the ALRC's opinion is not important in regard to the architecture. Staff explained that in this case it has not been submitted to the ALRC for architectural review. The building elevations and landscaping may come back to the ALRC for their review. Discussion followed regarding the process. r'\Mv Documents\WPDOCSIALRclO-t8-00.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 13. Committee Member Reynolds asked what would happen if the ALRC would took no action. Staff stated it would then have to go to the Council. 14. Committee Member Cunningham stated he thought if it was resubmitted to the HPC they would probably agree with the ALRC recommendation. The choice is up to the applicant based on the ALRC's grading value. 15. Management Analyst Wilson reviewed the Committee's grading on the project for grading for the funding criteria worksheet which received a final score of 7 which does not qualify for the funding. The applicant now has the option to redesign and resubmit the project. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there is a problem with the system and it is not fair to the applicant to put them through this. 17. Committee Member Cunningham stated this is a new program and apologized to the applicant for making him go through this, but he could not vote for the design as submitted. In the end the building will be there for a long time and if he resubmits he should get what he wants. B. Site Develooment Permit 99-664; a request of Tiburon Homes for review of production home landscaping plans for the Norman Course, north of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street. 1. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no objections. The plant palette is standard for what is used in the desert. He had asked staff if CVWD had requested any direction toward drought tolerant plants. Staff stated no. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what type of control system will be used on the irrigation. Mr. Peter Jacobs, Marvin Homes, stated they are stand alone clocks and homeowners maintain the clocks. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the units were condos or single family. Staff stated single family. Mr. Jacobs stated the homeowner owns the front yard but it is maintained by HOA. C:\My DocumentsIWPDOCSIALRCIO-18-00.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 18, 2000 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2000-019, recommending approval of the project as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adjourn this special meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on November 1, 2000. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :55 a.m. on October 18, 2000. Respectfully submitted, ~~/ C2LJV ~~;1 ". SAWYER, Executive Secretary City La Guinta, California C:IMy DocumentsIWPDOCSIALRCIO-18-00.wpd 5