Loading...
2006 07 05 ALRC Minutes MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Ouinta, CA July 5, 2006 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Planning Manager Les Johnson. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, and Frank Christopher. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to excuse Committee Member Tracy Smith. Unanimously approved C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, 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: A. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to approve the minutes of June 7, 2006, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-864; a request of Tahiti Partners Real Estate Development Corporation for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 24890-1 for the property located on the east side of Mandarina south of Pomelo in the Citrus project. 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. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there used to be a three-car garage requirement, but he only saw two-car garages on the applicant's plans. He asked about a golf cart garage. The P.\('tJ.Rf'U VNIAI RrlAI Rr tu11f\llITJ:C::\lJ.t Rr 7_a:;,_()~ nor Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 applicant's representative Jennifer Toohey Conrad (Tahiti Partners) replied there was a cart garage, and noted its location on the exhibits. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt was concerned about the bottlebrush tree because they are so messy and high maintenance. The applicant asked if he had a recommendation. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the Committee prefers not to make recommendations on plant materials but inform applicants of the problems associated with certain plant material. He also pointed out on Plan 2, Lot 16, the California Pepper Tree is not be recommended due to breakage. The applicant asked about citrus trees. Committee Member Bobbitt said citrus was fine, but not the California Pepper, because of the potential of injury and death due to the crown-drop. It would be acceptable only if the tree is not in a high traffic area. The architect should be purchasing the trees a nursery where they are young and not from a grove. He said they would not recommend the Chilean mesquites because they uproot easily in wind storms. 4. Committee Member Christopher agreed with the use of tile and staff's recommendations, but had a problem with the wrought iron on the sky deck railing. He suggested the decorative iron on the sky decks have the same detail as any other wrought iron; such as the front gates. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked who was going to maintain the landscape. Ms. Conrad said the Homeowners' Association would maintain the landscape. 6. Committee Member Christopher asked about the existing lots to the east. Ms. Conrad explained those are not part of the project. It is a separate tract being developed by a different developer. 7. Committee Member Christopher said the plot map shows JM Peters, and asked if he was involved with this project. The applicant said no, it had changed hands. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the garage doors would be wood, or a simulated wood. The applicant said this is yet to be decided since they were concerned about maintenance of the wood. p.\rl1RrU YMlb.1 Rr\al Rr MINI lTl:,\lI.l Rr 7_I;_OR, nnr 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 9. Committee Member Christopher suggested they use fiberglass or other composite material that will look like wood. 10. The applicant asked about the no turf option and explained the Homeowners' Association wants a lush landscape and does not allow zero-scape. Committee Member Bobbitt said the water- efficient option comes from the Water District. 11 . Committee Member Christopher suggested the applicant work it out with the Homeowners' Association. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt states this was a recommendation of the Committee to the Planning Commission. If the Homeowners' Association does not want desert landscape, then the applicant can work it out with them. Ms. Conrad said the Homeowners' Association does not want desert landscape. 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to adopt Minute Motion 2006-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-864, as amended: a. The California Pepper be replaced with trees less prone to wind damage. b. Composite wood garage doors may be used c. Use decorative wrought iron railings on the second deck. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Discussion of final review of landscaping plans and role of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee. 1. Community Development Director Doug Evans discussed the role of the Committee in regard to what their overall involvement in the development of a project. a. The Committee currently approves concept landscape plans. Staff will now be bringing final landscape plans back to the Committee. The City Council is concerned that parkways appear to be underplanted. They would like to see better shrub massing, as well as additional hedges, in parkways and against buildings. Staff will be p.\rhRnl YMIll.l Rr\.o.! Rr MIMIITJ:c::.\lI.l Rr 7_~_nh nnr 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 adding conditions for the Committee to review on the final landscaping plans. If the Committee believes the plans are not adequate, the Committee should advise staff accordingly. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated when he was re-appointed to the Committee, one of the issues mentioned by the City Council was the extent to which the Council would like the Committee to go to when reviewing a project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt said he does not approve of the type of drip systems being submitted by architects on the current designs. The type of system they generally install is the tube emitter system and they are too easily broken. A hard pipe system would be preferred. The Committee needs to be more specific on the City's guidelines. Staff replied they would be reviewing the Water Efficiency Ordinance and this could possibly be built into the Ordinance. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt said flexible tubing is notorious for breakage and he is concerned with the dispensing of the water. Staff stated they would review this in the Landscaping Ordinance. Staff went on to discuss specific roles of the Committee with regard to land use. The Committee cannot rule on land use, but can look at compatibility of building design. The Council is concerned about architectural compatibility, building height, and setbacks. The Committee can review those issues as long as the discussion is in reference to design. The Council wants the whole processing procedure to do this. The Committee should not get into issues about retail use, but building, landscape, lighting, and anything related to design issues to make a project fit. The whole system has to be on the look out for design compatibility. Clearly look at screening shrubs, hedges, trees, and perception of future lighting plans and building design. There is an evolving ethic on energy efficient design for commercial use, and multi-family use. Energy efficiency through architectural design could be something the Committee looks at. 5. The Committee's overall role is if the design does not meet what they believe are City standards, inform the applicant; don't re-design it. Tell staff generally what the issues are. Sometimes if it's not a good project, be direct and don't spend p.\rlJ.R()1 VI\IIlJ.l Rr\l3.j Rr UINI IT~C::\111 Rr 7_I=\_nl:::. nnr 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 time discuss it. Tell the client they need to go back and re- design the project. Let staff handle it from there. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt said there needs to be a way to communicate to the developers what type of plans they need to submit so they do not have to be rejected or go through multiple reviews. He asked if staff discussed the project with the applicant before they are submitted to the Committee. Staff replied they work with the applicant and when there is a problem, they inform the applicant. Staff suggested the Committee Members review the staff reports in light of what materials or plans they need to make recommendations. If the application has been received late staff will add conditions of approval. to let both the applicant and Committee know there is a problem. Staff is reviewing the reports to spend less time telling the Committee what the plans show but what staff believes the Committee really need to look at, such as, here are the challenges, here are the plans, here are the issues. Staff spends most of their time writing reports and less time getting the plans together. Staff is accustomed to spending time on background, but will be working more on advising the Committee about the project. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt said he agreed with that type of report and generally looks at the recommendations first. He does not need to know about the roof tiles, he can see them. 8. Community Development Director Doug Evans said items are pulled off the agenda if there are problems with the project. They are returned to the client for re-design. Most developers want a very clean recommendation for approval. Staff wants the Committee Members to be comfortable with their role. They take great care in making appropriate recommendations, and staff is going to relay more information about the design criteria (such as the Village Design Guidelines) with sections highlighted. Staff will also be putting in a work program to re- define and re-design the Village Design Guidelines. If it is approved by the Council, it will give the Committee more direction. 9. Committee Member Christopher said there are a few small lots left in the Village. The pressure is to lift the height limit and get as much as possible on each parcel of land. What happens is the Village atmosphere is destroyed by concrete and height. It is one of the issues critical to the Old Town corridor. He gave p.\rll.Rnl Vt\I\ll.1 Qr\i~.l Qr MII\IJ IT!:c.:\ll.1 Rr 7_a:;_OR nnr 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 an example of the office building in the front of Arnold Palmer's Restaurant. It met all the criteria, but changed tl:te view. The proposal was in accordance with the rules. He questioned if the Committee looks at the criteria could Arnold Palmer's office have been taken down to one story, since the office building across the street is two stories. He asked what staff's opinion was in regard to imposing height restrictions on properties to maintain vista corridors in the Village to maintain the atmosphere. 10. Staff replied the Committee certainly has full authority to address compatibility consistency issues, not only architecturally, but also issues of height. In the Village it is almost lot specific. In the main core area, it may be more acceptable, but at the south end of the Village it has a different feel to it. Thirty-five or forty feet may not be wrong in the core area, but it is a matter of how it is being designed. The site needs to be designed in a way to allow more views of the mountains. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt said that really is the key issue. He gave an example of the Walmart design and how the applicant met the Highway 111 Design Guidelines which the Committee questioned when the project was presented. Staff acknowledged the action taken and replied the Council is looking to staff and the Commissions to be more critical in their analysis of projects. The Committee Members were encouraged to put their concerns on record. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt had an issue regarding the Village. He said the Committee was concerned from the beginning about the Village. He likes the design and feel of Old Town, but the biggest problem is parking. He asked if the City was going to build a multi-story parking lot. Staff said they were currently working on a parking study. 13. Committee Member Christopher said specific to the study, he is concerned there is a domestic service business and they park their cars in the retail spaces. Employees should be restricted to park in the City parking lot and leave the parking spaces on the street open for the retail traffic. Staff said it has to be managed by the business owners. Convenient parking is needed and staff is working to address this issue in the parking study. p.\r.l'1Qf"Il VP\lI.61 Rr\41 J:lr MIMIIT~C::\.l\1 Rr 7_J;:_()~ nnr 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 14. Committee Member Bobbitt said Old Town comes closer to the type of design he would like to see in the Village, including the style elements. The Palmer project has none of those elements. He would prefer suggesting the applicants change the design of the buildings to be more compatible. 15. Committee Member Christopher said it is important for the Committee to say what we feel about the architecture. One of the things he brought up to the Council was creating some continuity in architectural pockets of design within a commercial area. La Guinta is an eclectic community. When you go to a place that has a distinct architectural style within its core that will be the place people will remember. No one is against eclectic overview, but it makes a lot of sense when you are planning a city, to create continuity within pockets of architecture. This is what staff and the Committee/Commissions should be doing. People will walk the streets in future years and remember the continuity of style. 16. Staff said we may not be able to do that with the whole City, but maybe within the Village. Staff will be watching what happens in the next year, but the Committee should be seeing some new guidelines and direction. 17. Committee Member Bobbitt said he is going to take that direction with the Village and the Highway 111 Corridor. There isn't much left to build on out there. Staff said they are starting to check for that now. They've had a handful of Village area projects that did not work with the architectural style and they have advised the clients of that fact. 18. Committee Member Bobbitt said developers want to maximize their property, but using every square inch does not maximize the architecture. 19. Committee Member Christopher discussed design elements and stepping back the height on buildings in the Village. This Committee should be very sensitive to those issues as they come forward. If a developer can not do a project for the profit they anticipate, they will not do the project. The Committee does not want to stop projects, but needs to act with more scrutiny with regard to some of these projects. The City now has the benefit of being in a place where people want to come. The image of La Guinta needs to be preserved. If the p.\r.o.Rnl VNl61 Rr\ll.l R(, M1MlITI=c:.\1I.1 Rr 7_'\_rl4=>, n()r 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 Committee adheres to higher standards they will end up with a higher quality project. Staff said they want to raise the bar and get critical evaluations into the process. 20. Committee Member Bobbitt said the hardest thing is the balancing act between being developer-friendly and getting a good end project. If you tighten down the project you might scare the developers away. Staff said a lot of times it has to do with good communications with the developers on what the City expects. We are trying to find ways of communicating this to the developers earlier in the project. 21 . Committee Member Bobbitt said with the amount of development going on in the south and southeast they still do not have any commercial. His concern is the corner shopping centers are going to be very important. The design of the centers will be critical to make sure they remain neighborhood centers, instead of strip malls with Von's or Walgreen's. He would like to make sure they remain neighborhood shopping centers. Staff said they have had a few inquiries of interest. 22. Committee Member Bobbitt said he was criticized for the project on the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. 23. Committee Member Christopher said it would have been better left as a retail site. It would have serviced the community. There is too much pressure to do residential. In the area south of PGA West there will probably be a lot of 40, 60, and 80 acre projects with no continuity because there are a lot of separate owners. Developers will build their units and leave. He asked what they could do to encourage the developers to work together with adjoining property owners to build more compatibly projects. Property owners in Andalusia have to go to Ralphs at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street to shop. Maybe the City could provide some incentive to putting in a commercial center further south. Corners that are designated to have commercial, should remain commercial. 24. Committee Member Bobbitt said the City needs a landscape inspector to go out and check the landscaping for the projects. There is no one to insure that happens. Without that person, these developers will get low bids and downsize the landscaping. They will spec high cost items and put in low cost P.\(".6R()1 VMIlI.l R("Ii'''' Rr MINIITl=<:::'\lI.l Rr 7_I;_n~ nnr 8 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 items instead. The cost is then passed on to the developers. It's just like taking away the building inspectors. This will not happen with places like the Madison Club, or the Hideaway, but the average developer will put in low bid landscaping. Staff said they are not inspecting irrigation, but are checking plantings in comparison to the approved plans. 25. Committee Member Bobbitt said both box and caliper size have good and bad sides. You have to be careful with either designation. He has worked with people who did trench tests, pressure tests, valve tests, etc., and it was more expensive for the developer, but it made for a great product. The City needs a full-time landscape inspector to make sure the irrigation systems are the same type as noted on the original plans. Generally the landscaping will deteriorate, especially in commercial developments, if not maintained properly. 26. Committee Member Christopher said one of the things he found recently is the trend toward subterranean parking in commercial real estate and development. He said it was something the City should be considering and where feasible, put in underground parking. The concern of the citizens is they cannot get around in the Village and they expect to get within a half-a-block of. where they're going. It's cheaper to dig in this area than in others. The City should seriously consider underground parking. Staff said the draft Parking Study states the subterranean parking is driven by the price of the property. With the prices in the Village going up, subterranean parking is now becoming a viable option 27. Committee Member Christopher said it's not going to become cheaper. Other cities are beginning to refuse plans without subterranean parking in the plan design. La Quinta is getting to that stage. We need to seriously look at where the City is going to be in 20 years. Staff said part of the Village Parking Study showed comments about deficiency of parking. This was not completely true, it was a matter of convenience; and as the Village builds out where is the demand going to be: structure parking, fee-in-lieu of option, looking into future needs. Can the City accommodate future growth. D.\rb.Rnl Vt.IIAI !:lrl/l.l Rr f,1l1P\l1 ITI=C::\Lt.1 Rr 7_"'_t1f=; nnr 9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 5, 2006 28. Committee Member Christopher gave an example of a negative model of in-lieu fee funds for parking in Sun Valley, Idaho. He cautioned the in-lieu fees should be protected from using it for City General Funds. VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: A. Committee Member Christopher notified the Committee he will be out during the months of August, September and October and asked to be excused for those months. B. Committee Member Christopher wanted to call attention to the Walgreens located at Washington Street and Avenue 48. He reminded the Committee of the conditions imposed by the City Council. Those conditions included the caveat, when the additional infill office buildings were considered, substantial landscaping be added to the Avenue 48 planting corridor between the curb and the buildings. He wanted his comments on record since he may be out when this item comes up for review. He said the Council had suggested 48 to 60 inch box trees. That was part of the Rancho La Guinta's populace signing off on the project. The current landscaping is sparse and poorly maintained. He added if the office buildings come in for review he wanted to go on record this was said two years ago. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a special meeting to be held on July 1 2, 2006. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :26 a.m. on July 5, 2006. Respectfully submitted, .m!r;rJ IUtitL CAROL vrfw ALKER Secretary p.,r6Rnl YN\.o.1 ~r\lI.l pr MI"'UITJ;:,\b.1 Rr 7_I;_OR nnr 10