Loading...
2005 06 01 ALRC Minutes MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Guinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Guinta, CA June 1, 2005 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Principal Planner Fred Baker. B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and David Thoms. C. Staff present: Principal Planner Fred Baker and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of May 4, 2005. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2005-826; a request of the City of La Guinta Redevelopment Agency for consideration of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for an 80-unit multi-family residential project for the property located at 78-990 Miles Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff corrected the setbacks for the project. Staff introduced Frank Spevacek, and Jon McMillen from RSG and Robin Vettraino and Luke Taylor of NGA, the architect and landscape architect, who gave a presentation on the project. G:\WPDOCSIALRCI6-'-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 1. Committee Member Bobbitt Noted his residence was outside the 500-foot radius of the project and he did not believe he had a conflict of interest. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked how the developer to the west dealt with the units that were sitting on the property line. Mr. McMillen explained the wall was built long after the units were installed and each resident has added additional landscaping. 3. Committee Member Thoms asked for a definition of an organic DG. Mr. McMillen explained it would be a transition between the decomposed granite (DG) to the grass retention basin to the west. Committee Member Thoms asked if the retention basin to the west was grass. Mr. McMillen stated it currently was. Staff discussed changing this retention basin to DG as well and after discussion with the neighboring residents, who use the retention basin, it was determined to leave it as grass. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked if the units were for sale and the cost of construction. Mr. McMillen stated they would be rentals and the cost of the project is approximately $95.00/sq. ft. 5. Committee Member Thoms asked about the heat exchanger. Mr. McMillen explained this feature is an energy and conservation savings. He went on to explain how it functioned. Committee Member Christopher asked the material of the lattice work. Mr. McMillen stated they were metal. 6. Committee Member Christopher asked the maximum height of the buildings. The applicant stated they were 12 feet and the towers 17 feet, setback in the middle of the building. The common building is 12 feet and the maximum height is 20'6". 7. Committee Member Thoms asked the color of the patio and the parking trellis. The architect stated the dark accent color. The carports are metal corrugated roofs in the silver color. The support posts will be metal and the darker color. The low block wall will be a mixture of the two colors. Solar panels are on the individual units. G:IWPDOCSIALRC\6-'-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 8. Committee Member Christopher stated the setback of the buildings on the west side seems greater than the setback on the east side. Mr. McMillen stated they are 22 feet on residential and 15 on the Church. Committee Member Christopher asked the width of the street. Mr. McMillen stated on narrowest part it is 26 feet. The islands are six feet wide. The drive lanes around the island narrow to 18 feet. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the 16 guest parking was for the entire development. Mr. McMillen stated yes with an additional two per rental space for a total of 42. He went on to show their location on the display. Staff stated they meet the Zoning Code requirements. 10. Committee Member Christopher asked if overnight parking was being prohibited. Mr. McMillen explained a management company will be obligated to do criminal background checks and yearly registration on all vehicles. Vehicles will be registered at the office and each tenant will be required to have car insurance. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the galvanized steel gate shown on Plan 1. Mr. McMillen stated it is a trash enclosure or enclosure on the commons building. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they would be painted. The architect stated the material has not yet been determined. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what concerns were expressed by the neighbors. Mr. McMillen stated they were informed it would be an affordable housing project. After giving them the criteria based on State requirements and what the Agency was proposing, most everyone was comfortable with the project. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he was comfortable with the project, but noted it is very dense. He asked the reason for this density? Staff stated they are lowering the density from what is existing. They are going from 92 to 80 units. The City's Redevelopment Agency Plan needs to produce more affordable units in the 3-4 bedroom unit category and this is the right location. Mr. Frank Spevacek stated the location was chosen because of what was existing at this location. The Agency was able to secure the Park at an affordable price and determined to have as many affordable units as possible to help meet the State requirements for affordable housing. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if it is mandated to a city that they must have G:IWPDOCSIALRC\6-1-05 ALRe.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 affordable housing or is it if they want the funds from the State. Mr. Spevacek stated the way the Redevelopment Agency is set up is that we can access State Federal funds, but the primary source of La Guinta's funding is the allocation of tax increment funds and bonds. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this was a very low-income project. Mr. Spevacek stated it is' a very low-income project and the goal is to have a management company that will maintain and keep it that way. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed the concern of the neighborhood is their property values. This appears to be a good project with what is allowed. If the management company operates it properly, it could be a decent project. His hope with the transition of the Park to eliminate the criminal that currently exists. 13. Committee Member Christopher noted with the requirements to live here it will help to eliminate a lot of the problem residents. He noted that the trailer park housed those individuals who lived here as a last resort. This fed a lot of the activity that occurred at the Park. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the current residents use the Adams Street Park; does this new site have access to the park? Mr. McMillen noted that when the fire station was constructed a 3.5 foot opening was left for access to the park. It will be accessible by virtue of the entry gate key. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the reason for the recreation area at the front of the Park instead of the middle. Mr. McMillen stated the concern was to give the larger buffer to Miles Avenue, but given the constraints of the land design it would not work at any other location. It was not an efficient use of the land. 15. Committee Member Thoms asked about the major tree palette. Mr. Taylor stated they were date palms and crepe myrtles. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the crepe myrtle is a high maintenance tree and deciduous that will be messy. 17. Committee Member Thoms stated it would be best to limit' the number. Mr. Taylor noted the larger trees were Evergreen Elm. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\6-' -05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 18. Committee Member Bobbitt stated this was another messy tree. IVIr. Taylor stated the other proposed trees were the Palo Verde and Acacia. It will be the same on both sides of the street. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the elm needs to be replaced and possible the crepe myrtle. 19. Committee Member Thoms asked what was proposed for the property line trees. Mr. Taylor stated two varieties of acacia. 20.. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested that instead of the elm a fruitless olive be used as a long term solution. 21. Committee Member Thoms stated the lattice structure over the parking area is weak; it appears to be spindly. The elevations are on the block side and the structure looks cheap. Mr. McMillen asked if a metal material would that be better. 22" Committee Member Bobbitt stated wood would never last. If wood is used it has to be pressure treated. The uprights would then need to be steel. 23" Committee Member Christopher noted you could use. two smaller elements and create mass by using more elements. 24" Committee Member Thoms stated the main drive entrance up to the gate should have an enhanced paving such as a stamped detail. He likes the idea that the buildings are simple." The landscape should be kept simple as well. Just beef up the overhead structure. 25.. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2005-816, as recommended and as follows: a. Eliminate the Evergreen Elm trees; b. Enhance the paving at the entrance. in a decorative texture such as a paving stone; c. Eliminate the spindly effect of the support beams on the shade structure; d. Transition the existing retention basin with existing turf retention basin G:\WPDDCS\ALRC\6-1-05 ALRe.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee May 4, 2005 e. The trash enclosures shall be approved by the Community Development Director; and f. Substitute the Date Palm tree with another palm tree where it is a safety risk 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 Bobbitt/Thoms to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Special Meeting to be held on June 16, 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :04 p.m. on June 1, 2005. Respectfully submitted, ~v Eli. SAWYER Executive Secretary G:\WPDOCS\ALAC\6-1-05 ALAC.doc 6