Loading...
2005 04 06 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 April 6, 2005 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:09 a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Sawa. B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and David Thoms. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CAl.ENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 2, 2005. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thorns/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as submitted. Committee Member Christopher abstained. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-810; a request of La Ouinta Golf Estates for consideration of final architectural and landscaping plans for the Guardhouse and access improvements for the property located at Coachella Drive between Eisenhower Drive and the La Guinta Golf Estates. 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. Staff introduced the applicant, Peter Murphy, President of the La Guinta Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Mr. Greg Helms and Mark Cook, G:IWPDOCSIALRCI4-6-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Association members, and Moises Troche, the architect, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the issues raised at the Planning Commission regarding the wall. Mr. Greg Helm explained the issue of the wall was raised by Mr. Ted Llewellyn at the Commission meeting. It was Mr. Llewellyn's opinion his wall should be raised in height one to two feet. Since that time they have met with their engineers and they believe the wall can be raised per Mr. Llewellyn's request and they will comply. Mr. Helm stated all four property owners' walls abutting the guard house will be raised equal amounts. Committee Member Bobbitt stated raising the wall may cause an issue with blocking the views. If the HOA and the homeowners can work this out it is the best solution. From an architectural standpoint this is not an issue for the Committee. The engineering of the wall will need to be worked out between the HOA and the applicant. Discussion followed regarding the wall height and proposed material to be used. 3. Mr. Ted Llewellyn, 49-127 EI Nido, stated he had spoken at the Commission meeting and the Chairman stated at that meeting the wall should be seven feet and he would like to know the exact height of the wall and from where will the wall be measured. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked Mr. Llewellyn if he preferred one or two feet. Mr. Llewellyn stated the higher the better. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated aesthetically the height is not an issue of the ALRC, but it needs to be worked out with the homeowners. The Committee agrees with one to two feet. If the engineer states it cannot go higher it will need to be worked out structurally. 6. Committee Member Thoms asked the current height. Mr. Llewellyn stated his wall is about five feet. 7. Mr. Helm stated the height moves to follow the contour of the street. They will raise the wall the same amount to maintain the proportionate height to the street. The Planning Commission gave instruction for it to be one to two feet. G:IWPDOCSIALRCI4-6-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Lelndscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 8. Committee Member Thoms asked if the wall will be replastered. The applicant stated yes. 9. Committee Member Christopher asked about the painted finish on the main gate. Mr. Moses Troche, project designer, stated it would be a patina finish. Committee Member Christopher asked about a sample color pallet. Mr. Troche stated he would provide staff with the color samples. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt reviewed the prior discussion on the gate approvals. He noted the detail that had been adeed to the design. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the bougainvillea can be a maintenance issue; the pots need to have drainage provided; and other than that, he has no problem with the plant pallet. 12. Committee Member Christopher asked what material would be used for the trellis and if it would be pressure treated to help with the long term maintenance. Mr. Troche stated it is glue- lam or pressure treated. 13. Committee Member Thoms asked about the lighting. Mr. Larry Rogelway explained it is mostly uplighting on the trees and the lanes are lit for security purposes. Committee Member Thoms asked if the foliage will be lit. Mr. Troche explained the lighting on the plants. 14. Committee Member Christopher commended the applicant and HOA for putting together a high quality set of plans. 15. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how the wall height issue would be worked out. Mr. Murphy stated Mrs. Mouriquand's wall would be the biggest issue. 16. Mr. Mike Wales, 48-955 Avenida EI Nido, stated the reason for the higher height is for noise and privacy. They are not concerned with the view. The second issue is the bougainvillea will not be up and over the trellis. If the wall needs to be replaced the homeowners and applicant should share in the cost and the homeowner should assume the liability after completion. They are looking to the City to ensure the Planning Commission conditions are met. G:IWPDOCSIALRCI4-6-05 ALRe.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 17. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if their recommendation would go back to the Planning Commission. Staff stated no. Staff will see that the conditions are met. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the one foot in height for the wall may not be an issue, but the second foot may be a structural problem. It was noted by the applicant that the wall was owned by the HOA and in some instances the wall is on the property owner's land. Staff noted this would have to be worked out between the applicant and HOA. 18. Committee Member Christopher asked if the HOA had been informed of the wall height and whether or not their decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff stated the appeal period is over and the homeowners were at the meeting to see that their concerns are heard. He reiterated that it was a concurrence of the Committee that the design is good and the applicant will work out the issues with the HOA. 19. Mr. Ted Llewellyn asked where the height of his wall would be measured from. Staff stated it was not clarified at the time of approval by the Commission. The Planning Commission talked about it being seven feet and the motion stated one to two feet. 20. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the wall does not reach two feet can the plant material reach the additional height to help. Mr. Helm stated it has been his experience that plant material does not attenuate sound. 21 . There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-008 approving Site Development Permit 2004-810, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. When the cap is removed and a determination is made that the wall will support the two feet, the wall shall be increased two feet. B. Site Development Permit 2004-820; a request of Ehline Company/Hermann & Associates for consideration of follow-up review of landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans, model units, and common area for Tract 31249 - Village at Coral Mountain, for the property located on the south side of Avenue 58, 1/2 mile west of Madison Street. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 1 . Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Natasha King representing Ehline Company, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Chilean Mesquite and Bottlebrush are recommended to be deleted from the plant list, or is it a condition. He noted they are a high maintenance tree and do not work well in the desert. The issue of the grass at the curb line is a problem. CVWD currently has a requirement to keep the sprinkler heads 18 inches from the curbline. Typically you install a border with decomposed granite and even then you have problems. He would prefer the grass run to the curbline, but keep the sprinklers in the 18 inches which will create overspray and runoff that will keep the turf looking good. 3. Committee Member Thoms stated it could be planted as a planter bed. Staff noted if it is a rolled curb and people tend to drive up on it. He would like to see the number of Chilean Mesquite and Pepper trees reduced. Ms. Natasha King stated she agrees with their deletion and asked for a recommendation on what could be used. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the City does not have a recommended plant list and the problem with a recommended list is that there are so many alternative plants available that it would be better for the applicant to make the selection. The Committee does not want to limit anyone on what they can use. It is just better to not have a boiler plate plant list that is used over and over again. He would recommend a variety be used and not just one or two. An Acacia species was given as an example. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-009 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-820, as recommended by staff and as amended: G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALFlC.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 a. The quantity of California Pepper trees shall be reduced on the entrance and common area and replaced with one or more different varieties. C. Site Development Permit 2005-822; a request of KKE Architects/The Dunes Business Park, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail center 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 report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant Mark Giles, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if the parking lot spaces would be double-striped. The applicant stated they will be. Committee Member Christopher stated he has a concern on the north elevation in regard to the view of the property owners looking at the rear elevation with distracting lighting. If they are to be shielded and down lit, the wall should be a minimum of eight feet. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there was any provision for landscaping adjacent to the wash. Mr. Giles stated they were proposing a fence with landscaping on the interior. They would prefer to do the eight foot wrought iron fence with landscaping. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked what was proposed by Smart and Final for their fence. Staff stated the same wrought iron fencing with planting. 5. Committee Member Christopher stated it would not be as big an issue as Wal-Mart where they needed to address all the deliveries and aesthetics instead of just the noise. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would prefer the plant material rather than the block wall. He asked if the tree wells were four feet in size. Mr. Giles stated they are all six foot diamonds. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought they were supposed to be eight foot minimum. Staff stated the Code had not been amended to require the larger tree wells. Mr. Giles stated that to go to that size planter, it would be better to use the finger island. G:\WPDQCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 7. Committee Member Thoms asked about the small building on the south elevation; it appears too bland. His concern is that it faces Highway 111 . 8. Committee Member Christopher agreed. Discussion followed regarding the uses of the building. 9. Committee Member Thoms stated the south elevation will have to be upgraded. He also noted the berm and plant material are not noted on the plans. Staff noted they will have to work within the height limits of this location. 10. Committee Member Christopher suggested canopies be added over the three window resets and some serious landscaping with more color. Mr. Giles stated they are working out the issue of a deceleration lane into the site. This will determine how much landscaping they can do. 11. Committee Member Thoms asked about staff's recommendation on Item #7. Staff stated there is no project proposed for the west side of this project and on the east side the landscaping belongs to the other project. Staff is concerned about landscaping pockets along the end buildings. Committee Member Thoms stated landscape trellises may work. Mr. Giles stated they could reduce the size of the drive aisle to gain the space for landscaping. 12. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-822, as recommended by staff and amended: a. The south elevation of building one shall be upgraded. b. The end buildings shall have additional landscaping. c. The crepe myrtle trees shall be substituted with a different tree variety. d. An eight foot high wrought iron rear wall with landscaping and shielded light shall be constructed. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 D. Site Development Permit 2005-827; a request of Colbourn-Currier-NolI Architecture for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans, clubhouse and common area landscaping plans for Tract 31732 located on the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60. 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. Staff introduced the applicants William Currier and Sandra Esco, architects, and Steve Kellogg, landscape architect. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if this was to be affordable housing. Ms. Esco stated no. They have added some detail and undulation to keep the exteriors economical and yet have variety. The price range would be $400,000 to $800,000. The largest would be 2,600 square feet. 3. Committee Member Thoms stated the density is very high. Staff stated it is zoned Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bash stated the density has been reduced from the original design. Committee Member Thoms asked if it has been approved. Staff stated yes, by the Planning Commission and City Council have both approved the density. Committee Member Thoms stated there is a lot of busy detail on the elevations. The applicant stated there is an optional casita. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what material would be used on the wall. The applicant stated it is a masonry block wall with a cap. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why there was no entry off Avenue 60. The applicant stated they were not allowed an entry off Avenue 60. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the gates would be automatic. The applicant stated yes, with electronic gates on Monroe Street. 5. Committee Member Christopher asked if the turning radius was a City standard. Staff stated yes, and it is approved by the Public Works Department. 6. Committee Member Thoms stated he would struggle to approve the architecture. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 8 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 7. Committee Member Christopher stated that if the price range was $350,000 to $500,000, the architecture would be possible, but up into the $800,000 price range the basic architecture is certainly not up to what has been approved by this Committee. There needs to be more attention to the architecture. The applicant stated that with the casitas the price range would go up to $800,000. Without the casitas it should only be $400,000 to $600,000. 8. Committee Member Thoms stated the color of the materials is dull. The applicant asked what colors would be better and showed a sample color board for Tract 31733. Committee Member Thoms suggested the applicant take another look to enhance or reduce the clutter for the price range. The applicant asked if the Committee wanted more detail, or if they could provide more direction. Committee Member Thoms stated there are too many gable ends. One of the units has three different window shapes. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees. He does not like the design. They look busy and he does not like the color or the roof lines. 10. Committee Member Christopher stated that if you look at the classic Spanish Revival or Tuscan architecture it would help their design. They need to review some of these elements as they are missing in these plans. The Committee's statement is that this does not aesthetically meet the City's design criteria. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they have expressed their concerns and this architect can enhance their product based on their comments. The Committee does not want to redesign the project, but the Committee can state it does not meet the criteria of the City for a community. 11. Committee Member Christopher stated that if their theme is to be Spanish or Tuscan then they need to review the elements of those designs. The front gate elements are plain and simple with vertical lines. They need something with more detail with aesthetic value. Staff noted the landscape plan was conceptual. One entrance in and out is also a concern. Staff noted the subdivision design has been approved. G:IWPDOCSIALRCI4.6.05 ALRe.doc 9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 12. Committee Member Thoms noted the landscaping plans may be conceptual but the California Pepper should be limited as well as the mesquite trees. 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-011 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2004-827, with a note to the Planning Commission that they review the architecture plans to be more in line with classic architecture if they are trying to achieve the Tuscan or Spanish Revival look. More color and deviation is also needed. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2005-828; a request of Colbourn-Currier-NolI Architecture for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical residential plans, clubhouse and landscaping plans for Tract 31733 located on the northeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61. 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. Staff noted the architecture is similar and the Committee may want to apply the same comments to this tract. 2. Committee Member Thoms noted the site plan is better but it still has the same problems. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the price range would be the same. The applicant stated approximately the same. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-012 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2004-828. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2004-834; a request of Choice Enterprises for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units with two facades each located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community G:IWPDOCSIALRCI4-6-05 ALRC.doc 10 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant David Sacculla, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the applicant was intending to include the landscaping with the house and if there will be a variety of landscaping product offered? Mr. Sacculla stated they would be offering a conceptual design and will allow the applicant an option on the plants. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern was whether or not there would be a theme. Mr. Sacculla stated they would control the theme, but accommodate suggestive sales. 3. Committee Member Christopher stated there should be continuity of streetscape as a condition. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-013 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-834, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Continuity of streetscape 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 regular meeting to be held on May 4, 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 12: 1 0 a.m. on April 6, 2005. Respectfully submitted, >tc~y YER G:IWPDOCSIALRCI4-6-Cl5 ALRe.doc 11