Loading...
2000 03 01 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 March 1, 2000 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham. C. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Reynolds. Unanimously approved. D. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, 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 February 2, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Develooment Permit 2000-667; a request of M & H Realty Partners for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial pad building located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within Plaza 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. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIALRC 3-I-OO.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant if he would like to address the Committee. 3. Mr. David Geiser, representing M & H Realty Partners, owners of the Plaza La Guinta Shopping Center, stated they have gone to a great extent to see that this building matches the rest of the Center. It is their intention to maintain the architectural integrity of the existing design. To them, the issue is that staff is asking them to put a tile mansard roof on the south elevation. In their opinion, the Center itself has a lot of different architectural features; especially where the tower is located and the plaza opens up. The idea is that as you look at the building from Highway 111, it will match the rest of the Center, but from the Center, looking north, they want the outdoor plaza look with an outdoor sitting area to be the focal point. The arcade as suggested by staff, would create an area that would be more of a travel through than a sit down plaza. In contrast to staff's opinion, the flat trellis look does present the human scale which adds to the architectural character of the Center and increases the connection between the two buildings. They strongly want to keep the trellis as it will be a selling point. The use of the blue tile around the doors is to match the existing Center as well.as the exposed wood. They do not object to changing the doors on the trash enclosure to metal. They can change the windows as recommended by staff. Regarding the recommendation of staff for a wood storefront, they are requesting to use some of the newer building material technology to create a newer storefront system. They would be willing to use a plaster bullhead, but wood mullions are difficult to maintain. He went on to list the architectural details of the building that matched the Center. A second issue in staff's recommendation is Item #1, where staff is asking them to resubmitted their plans to the Community Development Department for review prior to submitting for a building permit. They have submitted their plans to Building and Safety and want to be able to continue with the plan check process. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is hard to create a rendering that will give a true description of what the project will look like, but in this instance the only item that appears to match the rest of the Center is the lamppost. This particular Center has a lot of texture that this building is missing. By not using mullions you lose the texture look. This building gives the appearance of a contemporary Spanish take off; more like the Albertsons Plaza C\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC 3-1-00. wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 across the street. Plaza La Quinta had the higher and full mudded tiles. The tiles on this building will have to match the rest of the Center exactly. When the Plaza was built, the developer created a more Spanish look. This store should be a continuation of what is there and appears to be going the wrong direction. He is not opposed to the trellis idea, but the rest of the building looks like a box store. Mr. Geiser stated that on the north elevation the details are the same. They are trying to combine all the elements of the Center. 5. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they agreed with all of staff's recommendations. Mr. Geiser stated they did. Committee Member Cunningham reiterated they do not want the storefront look. For the windows, they could use a composite material that looks like wood and use true divided lights, but to stay close to staff's recommendations. This building is an in-fill that does have a distinct style. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with Committee Member Cunningham. The east and north elevation are fine. The windows are not the same as the rest of the Center, but do resemble the Downey Savings building. The detail that is missing is a tower element which is a key element. This building is all flat. The south elevation lacks architectural detail. On the rest of the Center you can see tile from every angle. Mr. Geiser stated they too wanted to have the tower element, but there is a height restriction on Highway 111 that prohibits the tower. Their original design did have the tower and mansard roof. Mr. Geiser stated you would be able to see bits and pieces of tile from different angles as you traveled through the Center and he agrees the building would be better with a tower. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the walls are straight and the Center has a lot of variations. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated that if this was done in a rendering form you could see how the tile would be used. He reiterated the problem is this Center has so much texture and these elevations do not give a true feel for how the building will look and if it will blend in. This building is to be a part of the group. A tower would be great, but it would be difficult with the regulations as they are today. Mr. Geiser stated this building will be located next to the focal tower element of the Center and if they did add a tower, the two might fight with each other. C:\My Documents\WPDOCSIALRC 3-1-00.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 8, Committee Member Bobbitt stated that as you enter the Center you will see the effect. He does like the doors on the north elevation. As long as the south elevation has the same window effect he wouldn't object. Mr. Geiser stated the building may change with the addition of tenants who may want additional windows on the south elevation; could this be approved administratively. Staff stated yes. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this piece of property takes up the entire pad area. Staff stated yes. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was willing to give on the tile mansard roof. Staff stated this was the first building that would not have the tile. In addition, the applicant was asking for an amendment to the sign program to use all wall mounted signs instead of the hanging signs that are used in the multi-tenant part of the Center. Also a concern is that this building faces south and will need more shade than the trellis will provide. Mr. Geiser stated they would use shade cloth and plants. In regard to the signs, the way the building is designed there is no place to put the signs, except on the building fronts. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated the Center was designed to create a "Village" atmosphere. He likes the trellis because it opens it and is in keeping with the Center. The only issue he does not want to drop, is the storefront. The windows and front application should be the same as the remainder of the Center. 11 . Committee Member Bobbitt stated he did not dislike the building and he too likes the trellis treatment. As far as the signs, the Center does have buildings with wall signs as well. His recommendation would be to approve the building with staff's recommendations with the deletion of the mansard roof and tile for the south elevation. He asked if there was anyway to get the tower element without the full mansard roof. Mr. Geiser stated it will look like you are just trying to add tile. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the building would have the popouts around the windows. Mr. Geiser stated they will be the same as the existing tile popouts on the Center. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2000-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-667, subject to conditions as amended. C:\My Documents\ WPDOCSIALRC 3-1-00. wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 a. Conditions 3.A.: deleted. b. Condition 3.D.: Storefront windows and doors shall use brown wood frames or similar composite materials. c. Condition 4: Materials, colors, and stucco finish shall match those used in the multi-tenant portion of the Center. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2000-669; a request of the James R. Paul for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a multi-tenant industrial/office building located at the northwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Corporate Center Drive within La Quinta Corporate Center Specific Plan. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand 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 Mr. Bob Ricciardi, architect for the project, for his presentation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that due to the La Quinta Corporate Centre Specific Plan requirements the buildings are not the typical industrial style. However, they did need to accommodate the cost element. Therefore, the southwest look was selected with as much storefront glass as possible. They are using wood beam lintels and smaller windows to create the southwest look. With the landscaping they are trying to meet the Specific Plan requirements. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned why some of the trees on the original plans are not on the revised plan for the elevation that faces the High School. Mr. Ricciardi stated the trees will be there and were overlooked on the revised plan. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that as you travel south on Dune Palms Road you will see the flat rear wall and this is why the trees are so important for screening. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated his biggest concern was the landscaping on the back wall. A second issue would be to have the trash enclosure at the northeast corner moved more toward the center of the project rather than next to Dune Palms Road. There needs to be some type of landscaping statement at the corner of the site rather than a trash enclosure. Mr. Ricciardi CIMy DocumentslWPDOCSIALRC 3-1-00.wpd 5 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 stated they tried to place the trash enclosure out of the way of the trucks that would be traveling through this area and keep them close enough for the tenants to walk to them. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the air conditioning units would be placed on the roof. Mr. Ricciardi stated they would be on the roof and should not be visible from the street. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2000-006 approving Site Development Permit 99-669, as submitted. Unanimously approved. a. The trash enclosure area at the northeast corner of the site, shall be moved over 30..t feet west so as not to be seen from the Dune Palms Road. 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 Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on April 5, 2000. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :23 a.m. on March 1, 2000. Respectfully submitted, C:IMy DocumentslWPDOCSIALRC 3-1-00.wpd 6