2006 07 12 ALRC Minutes Special Meeting
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A Regular meeting held at the La Guinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Guinta, CA
July 12, 2006
10:00 a.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:07 a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Sawa.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Tracy Smith. It was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Smith/Bobbitt to excuse
Committee Member Frank Christopher. Unanimously approved
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa and Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III.
CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006-863; a request of Innovative
Communities for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans
for three prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 34243 (Paso
Tiempol for the property located on the north side of Avenue 58
approximately 1,000 feet west of Madison Street.
1.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented
contained in the staff report, a copy of which
Community Development Department.
the information
is on file in the
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about tree sizes, but had no
problem with the plant palette except for mertus. He asked
staff about the use of Bottletrees, as it was not on the list.
Staff indicated where it was listed on the typical front yard
landscape plans. Committee Member Bobbitt said Bottletrees
should not be in the plant palette.
....,'"'.. nt"\' """ 1\, 0("" II I 01"' ,,~'''''' lTt:C'\ "' Dr "_1 ')j)&:: nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the entry gate was to be a
wood picket. Staff stated it was a wood gate with metal
pickets. Committee Member Bobbitt said wood deterioration is a
problem in the desert heat and suggested they use a composite
material that looks like wood.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt said the plant palette is acceptable.
but agrees with staff about the Chinese Elm, because they are
deciduous and make a mess.
5. Committee Member Smith said Bottletrees cannot be topped
and are easily ruined by improper trimming techniques. They
eventually are removed.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Common Olive is a nice
tree but he would use the Swan Hill or Wilsonii which are
fruitless. The common olive trees create a mess.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the note staff made
about the Date Palms being a beautiful tree but, you have to be
careful where you place them. The note indicated they should
be used in an area where there is a low pedestrian area to avoid
injury or death from crown drop. If they are used they should be
certified by an arborist or landscape architect and not from a
date grove. He suggested the use of California or Mexican Fan
Palms instead of the Date Palms.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the applicant offer the no
turf front yard option.
9. Committee Member Smith added the developers need to offer
the choice to homeowners who may not want to deal with the
maintenance of turf.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the mixture of tree
sizes. He said they would like to see the developers put in
something larger than a 24.inch box tree in key areas.
11. Committee Member Smith said the building boom creates an
overwhelming need for larger size trees. What typically
happens is there is an inadequate supply of trees and smaller
trees are put in a larger box and you do not get the actual box
size you're paying for.
1"'-'''''''''''''' '''.11 AI.......',.....,.. ..'.IIIT""C'\ ^I 0f""7 1') nc; .....",..
2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
12. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the picket block
walls (to discourage climbing) and asked for clarification on the
berming comments. Staff replied they were requesting the
applicant include berming along the parkway on Avenue 58
consistent with City Code. The plan doesn't say anything about
berming and staff was reminding the applicant of the
requirement.
13. Committee Member Smith said he did not see anything about
the water features proposed at the entrance. He asked if there
were elevations for these features. The applicant said they
were provided in one of the earlier exhibits shown. Staff stated
there is a small pool water feature in the 7-foot range. The
applicant provided a rough draft copy for review.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said since the retention basin is
such a long, narrow corridor it is going to be fairly steep. He
asked if the City had a minimum slope of 2: 1 for retention
basins. Staff replied it was no greater than 3: 1. Committee
Member Bobbitt wanted to bring the point up there will be
issues of erosion if the slope is more than 2: 1. The applicant
said they thought theirs is 3: 1. Committee Member Bobbitt said
what happens is if there is traffic on the decomposed granite it
will all end up at the bottom of the retention basin.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the type of garage
doors. Applicant Brad Fomon replied they are proposing wood.
Committee Member Bobbitt suggested a composite wood would
be better for lower maintenance. Committee Member Bobbitt
asked if the side windows had any type of relief. Mr. Fomon
replied they are trimmed out with plaster pop outs.
16. Mr. Fomon asked for clarification on Condition #11 in regard to
the Community Development Director signing off on the plans
before they go to construction. Committee Member Bobbitt said
this Committee is a one-stop shop and the client does not have
to come back. He added the client will have to clarify
landscape issues (massing of shrubs). Staff replied this
condition will require the Director's approval.
17. Committee Member Smith pointed out where the shrubs are
spotty along the frontage.
n.,,.... nl"\' "~,, AI"''''' ^' nl'" ..,,,,, 'T~C'\ ^' 0.... "'7 1"l f"lt::. nf"'lr
3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
18. Committee Member Bobbitt said it is not the type of shrubs,
but how they are laid out. Mr. Fomon said that was no problem
to revise. Planning Manager Johnson said it is just as much of
an issue in the retention basin. Problems can occur due to
erosion, but if you have plant massing it is less susceptible.
19. Committee Member Bobbitt said it will make the maintenance
easier because the gardeners will have a tendency to turn
individual shrubs into little balls or squares.
20. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion
2006-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2006-864, as recommended and amended:
1. A composite materials shall be used instead of wood on
the entry gate and garage doors
2. Fruitless Olive trees shall be used
3. All shrubs shall be at least 5-gallons, except for ground
cover.
Unanimously approved.
B. Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #1; a request of East of Madison,
for consideration of standard perimeter wall plans around the Madison
Club for the property located on the south side of Avenue 52 and east
of Madison Street.
1. Planning Manager Les Johnson gave a preface to the Committee
Members regarding the issues involved in the project and why
the standards were being discussed.
2. 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 pointed out the
design concepts will be used around the balance of the project.
3. Commissioner Bobbitt said he did not want to see a repeat of
the Hideaway berming on Avenue 54 since it looks like a
fortress. The berming around the Madison Club, at. present,
does not appear to be a problem. However, the slope on the
Avenue 54 side is unattractive and is not maintained. If the
applicant provides heavy landscaping the Commission wants to
make sure the slopes are maintained. Typically golf course
...,,,......,..,,,.,,,,, ,.,....'^' Of" ..'kIlITt:C'\^1 01"' -, ,., n&: n"r
4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
maintenance workers are responsible for maintaining the
perimeter landscaping and he wanted to make sure the berm
sloping and landscaping would be maintained properly.
4. The applicant, John Gamlin, gave background information on
the Hideaway and said they were unable to re-grade the
Hideaway berming when they purchased the project. What
further exacerbated the situation was a five-foot sidewalk that
was required along the frontage on the north side of Avenue
54. In addition, they were conditioned to add a horse trail
which caused a slope problem and created a situation where it
has been very difficult to gain the establishment of material on
the slope. They have tried to maintain appropriate landscaping
and have hired Lundeen Pacfiic to maintain the landscaping.
One of their first areas of focus will be Avenue 54 to see what
they can do to get it into a more acceptable condition.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt said The Hideaway had previously
approved plans to have a six foot berm with a wall on it.
Somehow, that became a 20 foot berm with a wall, which
never came back to this Committee. He wanted some
assurance that would not happen at The Madison Club. He was
concerned about the slope on Jefferson Street since it is too
steep to mow. It will be very heavy maintenance. He added he
was concerned about the use of all of the pine trees on the golf
course. His experience is some of the species are going to
cause problems. He would not deny the applicant the use of
those species but, commented that the Pinus Halapensis will
have red spots. The applicant said he would pass the
information on to the landscape architect.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt offered suggestions on some shrubs
and tree materials he would not use. The applicant said he
appreciated the comments as his architect is from out of the
area.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt made a recommendation on a few
problematic species; such as Canary Island Date Palms, which
are extremely expensive. They are dramatic trees but have a
very high probability of fungal problems.
8. Committee Member Smith asked if the applicant had seen any
of this variety in the desert. The applicant said he had and the
... ,,.. ~ ...........' "." '" ....,..,,,, nf'" ..,." ITr-....1 ^ I nf'" "'7 1"l f"'Ia n",...
5
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
specimen they are using is being grown by a local desert grower
and are using a professional advisor.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt went over the plant palette and
suggested the California Sycamore, California Pepper, and
Aleppo Pine not be used. He added most of the other tree
species were acceptable.
10. Committee Member Smith commented on the shrubs being used
in the plant palette. A lot of the designated shrubs need shade
and he cautioned the applicant from relying on immediate shade
from the nearby trees as some may die. There will also be a
problem with gardeners trimming the trees too much. He had a
question about Kaffir Lily.
11 . Committee Member Bobbitt replied Kaffir Lily looked like a wide-
leafed Agapanthus, but needs 100% shade. The Agapanthus
will burn in the sun and doesn't bloom in the shade. He
cautioned the applicant from planting in the hot months.
12. Committee Member Smith cautioned use of the Giant Lily turf as
it is another shade-loving shrub.
13. Committee Member Bobbitt said he is constantly looking for
different shrubs to put in PGA West and has not had a good
experience with some of these shrubs. The applicant said he
appreciated the input.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said what typically happens is when
the contractor installs the landscaping, it looks great but, after
the weather changes you begin to lose plant materials. When
you start to have large areas to replace you will need to decide
whether to re-design or replace because of the mass planting.
The applicant asked for list of shrubs the Committee is
concerned about.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt listed Agapanthus (Lily-Of-The-Nilel,
Kaffir Lily, and the Fortnight Lily which can look good in the
Spring, but do not hold up well in the Summer. The Mock
Orange (pittosporum) will scorch if it is in full sun.
16. Committee Member Smith added the Sago Palm will have to be
in shade and suggested the Giant Lily turf not be used.
n.'r'^CI"\I Vt.I\^1 C("'\^I Dr- "~lMIIT~C:\^1 ~r "_1?-''IF: nnr
6
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
17. Committee Member Smith had a question on the ground cover.
Some of the plants listed are not considered ground cover, such
as, Texas Mountain Laurel, Jack Evans Indian Hawthorne are
small trees. He asked if the applicant was massing this type of
plant material instead of ground cover. The applicant said yes.
18. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern regarding
maintenance, Traditionally ground cover is considered low
growing.
19. Committee Member Smith said he was confused because they
were listed as a ground cover and thought this would work out
well.
20. Committee Member Bobbitt said the project appears to be one
of the premier projects in the desert, but his concern was with
particular plant varieties, the slope, and the maintenance.
21. Staff gave the history and background on the berming on
Avenue 54. Discussion between staff and the applicant have
produced plans which will be more aesthetically pleasing than
what is currently graded on Avenue 52.
22. Committee Member Bobbitt said they never saw the big berm
change on Avenue 54. He was disappointed that the changes
never came back to the Committee. Staff pointed out the
Avenue 52 berm has areas up to 16 feet and gradually
decreases in elevation as you head east. Staff has discussed
height relief with the applicant.
23. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his other concern is the
slope. He felt some of the slopes were 2: 1. Staff said 3: 1 is
the maximum. Committee Member Bobbitt added steepness of
the slope will cause runoff in the street. The Hideaway was the
first one to do the big berm, and now it is everywhere. You
can't see into a project even with a smaller berm. Staff said
this is an item they are adding to the Work Program for the
Committee for next year.
24. Committee Member Bobbitt mentioned a meeting he had with a
landscape architect of Country Club of the Desert discussing
their use of hydromulch with wildflowers on a slope. He
cautioned the architect from using those materials and
~ .....~.... ..." A' ........., A......... ....".-r-r-....., ",,.,.......... 1'" At:: ,..,,.,,...
7
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
explained what can happen when the wrong plant material is
used.
25. Staff had suggested the Committee discuss the six conditions
of approval.
26. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had concerns about
breaking up the long expanse of wall. The applicant said they
had addressed the situation by re-grading the berm, making the
wall meander, and using the landscape palette. Committee
Member Bobbitt asked if the landscape palette would effectively
cover the whole wall. The applicant stated it would. Staff said
it may be prudent to address each item specifically.
27. Regarding Condition #1, Committee Members asked what was
meant by "include view corridors." Staff replied because it is
such an intense landscape palette, it was proposed that some
areas be less intense to break up the denseness and allow a
view of the mountains. The applicant stated he disagreed with
the whole philosophy of view corridors in the landscaping.
28. Committee Member Smith asked if this condition was referring
to using wrought iron fencing. Staff replied no.
29. Committee Member Bobbitt said he thought Condition #1
referred to thinning of the trees and bringing it down so you can
see into the Club, but that is obviously the opposite of what the
applicant is trying to accomplish due to privacy issues. He said
a view corridor of the mountains is a tough issue. He liked it
the way it was designed. The applicant said the view would be
90 degrees to the direction of travel and went on to explain the
mountain vistas from the roadway. He said the condition
related to legislating views and said the City would be opening a
dangerous area. He also mentioned conditioning tree height
(Condition of Approval #4) exceeding 30 feet. He asked if the
City was going to request the applicant top the trees if they
exceed the height limit; how can you legislate how high a tree
can grow. What would happen if a tree grows higher than 30
feet? How will the City legislate and enforce the condition?
Mr. Gamlin opposed the condition.
30. Staff interjected Condition #4 was not written to legislate
height of trees. The condition states: "Perimeter trees with a
mature height in excess of 30 feet shall be limited to planting in
n.\r'^ Df"'\l VI\I\ ^ I Of"'\ ^I Dr '.JlllI.llITCC:\ ^l Dr 7_1 ')-"\~ nnr
8
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
areas that are no greater than five feet above the toe of berm
elevation," The intention is to prevent larger trees from being
too high on the slope, keep them down towards the bottom of
the slope.
31. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed with the applicant. He said
the City should not start worrying about how tall trees can get
because they will grow and can block people's views. Staff
replied the issue is not necessarily about blocking views. It is
about keeping the larger trees further down the slope.
32. Committee Member Bobbitt said he understood staff's concern
as some of these trees can easily go 50 to 60 feet. Staff said
the reason to bring that up is not height but the problem with
putting large trees on top of a berm. This will create a
maintenance issue.
33. Committee Member Smith said it is not about height of the tree
but where they are located on the berm. Staff said it is an
issue about planting larger trees further down on the slope.
Committee Member Smith said staff is suggesting planting the
ones that grow taller lower on the berm.
34. Committee Member Bobbitt said he understood the definition,
but he tended to agree with the applicant. This was an
interesting point and it could be a recommendation, but he
thought they had to be careful because in the middle of the golf
course there is a lot of differentiation in grade; do you continue
the condition through the golf course. Where do you draw the
line? It should be an issue about how the developer believes he
can solve the problem.. Staff wanted to make clear the intent
and purpose of Condition #4 is not to restrict height of trees, it
is about longevity to insure larger trees are planted lower on the
berm.
35. Committee Member Bobbitt asked for clarification of whether
staff was referring to larger trees at planting or at maturity.
Staff said at maturity. The applicant said if you look at layering
ground material and graduating in height, what staff is
suggesting will cause more height sooner which will narrow the
field of view. It was a legitimate point of view and the
landscaping maintenance will cause the development to have
taller trees in the front and shorter trees at the back. It will
create a giant hedge look.
".or''' .........., "~I\ ^ I Cf"\ ^' or ~~I""IITl:C\ ^r or "7.1') n&:. r"\nr
9
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
36. Committee Member Smith said the reality is that it is mixed,
nothing is in a straight line. The applicant said the landscape
plan was very organic and nothing emphasized a straight line.
There is a lot of movement in the plan.
37. Committee Member Bobbitt understood staff's viewpoint, but
was more concerned with the plant palette, but if you try to put
taller trees low you would end up massing a particular type of
tree in an area. His recommendation would be to go with the
plan as is and have the developer be cognizant of the fact the
taller variety of trees should not be massed higher up on the
slope. He just wanted to add a caveat to the Condition.
38. Committee Member Smith asked if Committee Member Bobbitt
wanted the condition deleted. Committee Member Bobbitt said
no.
39. Committee Member Smith said if the trees were more mixed up,
what the applicant is trying to do will look good. He
commented there were a lot of trees listed on the plant palette
that would reach 30 feet. It would be very hard to define which
trees should be placed lower on the berm.
40. Committee Member Bobbitt referred to Condition #1 regarding
view corridors. He said since the developers have been allowed
to do the mass planting and berming it would be too difficult to
require a view corridor. You will not be able to see anything in
the Club. Staff said they were not interested in seeing into the
Club, but they were interested in having some areas a little
more open as opposed to a view of solid trees when you're
driving down the street.
41. Committee Member Smith suggested having some gaps in the
spacing to cut down on the density.
42. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was afraid the trees
would become a giant barrier and you won't be able to see
through. Staff said that was more of what they were concerned
about. He did agree where they originally planted Carolina
Cherrys on Jefferson Street it did not work. Then they planted
ficus trying to get a massive hedge. He really didn't see the
need for that since it's up on a high enough berm.
h.,"'^nl"\, """ AI r:.r"\ AI r:>f'" ""1M' ITee, ^l 0(" ~_1 ,)J\e:: nnr
10
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12. 2006
43. Committee Member Smith said it is so nebulous you would
almost have to say exactly where you want to take something
out. There is a problem with thinning out the plant materials and
how far do you go. He added there is such a variety of tree
sizes there will be a lot of variation when they are planted. He
said it should not look hedgy or overly thick.
44. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about Condition #2. The
applicant pointed out the enhancements made to the wall.
Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to leave
Condition #2 as is. The applicant asked how to define readily
visible? Committee Member Bobbitt replied it would probably
be an area where there is no coverage by foliage. He was not
sure how to define the size of the area. The Applicant said
there was probably no area where you would not see the wall
obscured or the massing of it. Staff said if there is no area that
will not be covered, this Condition is a moot point.
45. Committee Member Bobbitt said if the Committee had required
the applicant expose some of the wall they would have to add
some architectural detail. He said he would recommend
acceptance as presented.
46. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that Condition #3 be
modified to delete the use of the California Pepper tree since
they have a propensity for breaking in the wind. Staff said they
will change the phrase to read "Consider deleting."
47. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what staff was requesting in
regard Condition #5. Staff replied this is the concept they will
use for all their perimetEilr streets since they did not submit plans
for all streets.
48. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the two inch
decomposed granite required in Condition #6. The applicant
said they did not plan to use decomposed granite, they had
proposed to use a minimum of one inch organic mulch. He
described the materials used in the planters and asked staff if
that was acceptable. Staff said mulch or decomposed granite
could be used. Commissioners asked about the mulch. The
applicant was not sure what it consisted of. Staff asked if it
was organic. The applicant replied it was.
p.\rll.l=?nl vt\J\lI.t Rrlll.l Rr MII\IlITl=C:\lI.l r:lr '7~1 ?_(),:\ nnr
1 1
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
49. Committee Member Bobbitt said most organic mulches tend to
grey and float out, but this mulch is not being placed near
homes so it should work.
50. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt
Minute Motion 2006-023 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2006-864, as recommended and amended:
a. Remove Conditions #1 and 4, but request the Planning
Commission review these items and be aware they were
brought up.
b. Condition #3 should be corrected to read "Consider
deleting" instead of "Delete".
e. Condition #6 should be revised to say "A minimum of
two inch of decomposed granite, or one inch of organic
mulch, shall be provided in planter areas."
f. Add Condition #7 - Recommending the developer review
their plant palette as some particular varieties of trees
and shrubs may not be appropriate.
Unanimously approved.
C. Site Development Permit 2006-862; a request of Highland La Quinta,
LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three
commercial buildings in Phase 2 of the Dunes Business Park located
on the north side of Highway 111, between Jefferson Street and Dune
Palms Road.
1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff ~eport, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Smith asked if there was a wood trellis. Mr.
Mark Giles, representing Highland La Quinta, said yes.
Committee Member Smith said there is a problem with the
maintenance of wood products. The applicant said they would
be happy to use a composite material. He added he is also the
architect for Washington Park and is familiar with alternative
products. Mr. Giles asked to review the conditions. In
particular, Conditions 1 and 8. Regarding Condition #8, the
Highway 111 Plans were a part of Phase I and were previously
approved. They were not responsible for the Highway 111
landscape plans. Staff said Condition #8 could be deleted as it
p.\rb.R(''ll YM\ll.l Rr\AI Rr I\I1IMIITJ;:~\61I=lr 7_1 ?_n~ nnr
12
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
does not apply to this project. Staff said the key issue is the
two drive-thrus proposed in one area. The Planning
Commission will have concerns regarding about drive-thrus and
the landscape plan on Highway 111. They will want the plans
to provide a nice aesthetic landscape with adequate screening
of the drive-thrus.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was referring to
Condition #1 or Condition #2. Staff said they were specifically
referring to Condition #1 and then pointed out the concerns
regarding the narrow strip.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the landscape strip had
been planted. Staff said it was not. Committee Member Bobbitt
asked if a condition would be added to require the landscaping.
Staff said it was conditioned to be constructed as part of the
back buildings. Mr. Giles said one of their concerns was to
ensure the landscape had the same look as the strip landscaped
by the previous architect, who did the Highway 111 landscape.
They have a problem because there is a 50 foot setback which
was moved in 12 feet due to a deceleration lane, and there is
not much room left.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt said this could cause a very steep
berm and with a water problem from the sprinkler system run
off. The applicant said there is currently a 2:1 slope. They
asked if they could encroach into the 50 feet setback to blend
in the landscaping. Staff said yes, they would encourage the
applicant to do so.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to see a decrease
in the slope to push it back to the street. Staff said the
landscape berm treatment could intrude into the 50 foot
setback.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt had a question regarding the
landscaping maintenance of the center itself. The landscape
architect Mike Singelyn, said there was a maintenance
agreement in the CC&R's. The whole property would be
covered by this agreement. Mark Giles said they would work
on Conditions 1, 2, and 6 so the area blends with the previously
approved Highway 111 landscape setback. They would work
on Condition #3.
n.,,... ~ .,n, H~"'" nl""'" I Of"' ~AI'..r .TCe'\ ^ I or "7 1'l nc. nf'lf'
13
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what size the tree wells were
going to be. Staff replied they would be 6' x 6'. Mr. Giles
stated they did not have a problem with Condition #7. Staff
identified the issue of a wall wrapping around on the west side
to minimize view of the drive-thru. What staff had identified in
the report was some way to help soften the drive through.
Discussion followed regarding the exhibit; staff reviewed what
was requested. Mr. Giles said they were not opposed to the
recommendation but, wanted to see what happened when the
change is made. Mr. Giles had a question on Condition #4 and
asked if that meant towers. Staff said yes. Mr. Giles asked
what was included in the height limit; the treatment or the
towers. Staff said they were referring to the towers. Mr. Giles
said the main concern is the 24 foot height on the building.
Staff said only the tower elements can go above the 22 foot
height limit.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt said they have received negative
comments on some of the projects along Highway 111 and are
very cognizant of these issues. He asked the applicant if they
could bring the height down. The applicant showed how they
could vary the height of the building. He stated the height
would have to be determined by staff.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked for an explanation on
Condition #5 and pointed out the areas on the drawing to make
sure he understood what was requested. The applicant said
they can comply on Building 1. Staff noted some of the
buildings don't comply.
11. Committee Member B,obbitt stated he agreed with staff's
recommendations on height and depth. Mr. Giles stated their
main concern is the 4 foot pop out on the building that backs
up to Jack-In-The-Box.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Committee is very sensitive
to the negative responses they have received about the side
building elevations that have a long, blank wall. He said adding
trees does not relieve the poor aesthetics. Mr. Giles pointed out
they had added articulation and trees and the building is six feet
below grade.
p.\r.o.Rnl Vr..IIAI Rr\hl Rr t\"II\IIITl=c::\.o.1 Rr 7_1 ?J'll=\ nnr
14
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 12, 2006
13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what staff was
recommending. The applicant outlined the grades around the
project and what options they had on pop outs and setbacks.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the sidewalk on the
east elevation. Mr. Giles said there is a four foot sidewalk and
a five foot with landscaping. Staff said they are less concerned
about the landscaping backing onto Jack-In-The-Box versus the
view on Highway 111. Discussion followed regarding the
exhibits and what could be done to soften the back of the
building.
15. Committee Member Smith suggested they add a couple of trees
and made several suggestions. Staff said that would be helpful.
16. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how staff proposed they
make the changes. Staff said they will physically go out to the
site and look at the Jack-In-The-Box site to see what is visible
along Highway 111 and will work. The applicant went over the
different buildings and what they would do to make the
development work to staff's recommended standards. The
applicant pointed out that staff is looking at the visibility of the
project and made several suggestions on how to improve the
site. Committee Member Bobbitt asked questions about the
sidewalk and said he thought it could be screened but it must
be maintained.
17. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how deep the arcade was for
Building 3. The applicant gave a description of the project and
pointed out which building faced Highway 111 and which faced
Jack-In-The-Box. Staff said they needed to go to the site prior
to taking the application to the Planning Commission.
18. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to see some
taller, three to four feet shrubs but not as a hedge to screen the
Jack-In-The Box.
19. Committee Member Smith asked if one of the areas in Building
One was going to be a restaurant. The applicant said only one
tenant would use the drive-thru.
20. Committee Member Smith asked if there was anywhere else in
La Ouinta where there were several drive-thrus in one location.
p.\rt.Rnl YMIAI Rrll!.1 Rr MIf\IIITi=c::\.o.1 Rr 7.1 ?f'lR. nnr
15
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
Juiy 12, 2006 .
Staff said there are no other developments with "built" projects
similar to this, but there were currently plans for one.
21. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion
2006-024 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2006-864, as recommended with the following amendments:
1. All trellis shall be made of composite or metal.
2. The applicant shall add three to four foot shrubs to each
side of Building B.
3. Add to Condition 5 - "excluding the east side of Building
3."
4. Condition 8 deleted
Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/Smith to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on August 2,
2006. This meeting was adjourned at 12: 12 p.m. on July 12, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
~WlifU iJLfl!&J
CAROLY~ WALKER
Secretary
p.\r6~nl VMIlI.l Rf'Il1J Rr f.111~IlITI=c:.\t.1 Rr 7_1 ?_nl=: n()f"
16