Loading...
2008 02 06 ALRC MinutesMINUTES ARCHITECTURE $c LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Celle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 6, 2008 10:00 a.m. I. CALL 70 ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:06 a.rn. by Planning Director Les Johnson. B. Committee Members present: Jason Arnold, Bill Bobbitt, and Ronald Fitzpatrick. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA; Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 2, 2008.. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: Final Landscapinr,L~Plans 2007-027; a request of Komar Development for consideration of final landscaping plans for the Komar Desert Center, located at the southeast corner of Depot Drive and Highway 111. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the buildings and the fact he thought it would be helpful if the building uses were identified on the plans. He asked if the parking plan met the City's requirements. Assistant Planner Ceja said the parking plan was Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. February 6, ?.008 approved during the Site Development Permit process. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was sufficient area provided for loading. Assistant Planner Ceja said cancerns about the loading area had been addressed and resolved. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the paving was going to coincide with construction and asked about the completion date. Assistant Planner Ceja suggested the applicant respond to his concerns. 3. Applicant's representative, Clint Knox of Komar Development, said they are looking at paving in amonth-and-a-half and landscaping would follow that. Applicant explained they would be coordinating the construction with Costco to minimize inconvenience to them. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if Costco had any complaints with them and the applicant said they did not. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt said the step outs on the end parking spaces were great as they would help keep people from stepping in and on, the landscaping. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the Barbara Karst variety of Bougainvilleas as a substitute for the San Diego Red variety on the columns as it would hold up better. 6. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-007, recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2007-027, as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: Additional landscaping shall be added to the east elevation. B. Site Development Permit 2007-898; a request of Regency Marinita La Quinta, LLC for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for a neighborhood shopping center of 90,441 square feet located at the southwest corner of Jefferson and Fred Waring. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was concerned about physical separation between the proposed buildings and residences and the park to the west. He then noted there was a six foot fence separating them. He thought the plan was well done but difficult to follow. He suggested the plan elevations Architecture and landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 be laid out more clearly for the Planning Commission presentation. He liked the southern exposure and the entrances. He commented on reduction of turf comment in the staff report. Staff said there was more turf than was usually seen on most projects. The water concerns of the last few years dictated a cutback of turf, especially in retention basins. 3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the retention basin area could be utilized for another use. Staff explained the conditions regarding the turf reduction and the fact they were encouraging the applicant to cut back on the turf. 4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the City monument that was slated to be located at the corner. Staff said this area was set aside as a reminder for the applicant to allow for the monument to be included. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked what the monument would be. Staff said it would be similar to the current pieces at the entrances to the City. 5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the building's interior design. Staff said they don`t usually include interior layouts in the information provided to the AIRC . 6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if an 18-wheeler would fit in the back to load and unload. Staff said the design was laid out so the trucks would be able to load and unload and then demonstrated the practical application on the plans. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a minimum radius for trucks as he was especially concerned about the southwest corner. Staff replied the Public Works Department had that information, had reviewed the plans, and did not express concern. 7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about exterior lighting. Staff said they did not mention lighting because it was usually addressed at the Planning Commission level. $. Committee Momber Fitzpatrick said negotiating the plans had been difficult for him since there were no cross references on elevations or pads. He said it would be easier if all plans submitted were adjusted at the AI.RG level so the Planning Commission could understand them better when they receive them. Staff said they will make sure everything was clear when it went to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Z Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 Fitzpatrick reiterated that staff did not have a probVem with sighting. Staff said the parking lot lights would be limited to a shorter height and shielded. 9. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if staff was satisfied there were enough spaces, especially for disabled. Staff said the applicant was in compliance. 10. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said plans were to be stamped by a licensed landscape architect and asked if the requirements were the same for an architect. Staff replied the Building & Safety Department made sure that requirement was met at plan check. 11. Committee Member Fitzpatrick wanted to know why they were making a distinction between an architect versus licensed landscape architect. Planning Manager Sawyer said the Building Department reviews the building plans and checks for architect's credentials. The Planning Department checks the landscape architect's credentials. Committee Member Fitzpatrick was concerned the designs were done by a professional architect. Staff said that was part of the overall application process as is the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. 12. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there were any LEEDs certifications involved in this project. Staff replied not that they were aware of, but the applicant could answer that question. 13. Michael Flynn, KTGY Group, the licensed architect for the applicant, introduced himself and said he would be signing these plans. They are looking at a number of sustainable elements; one of which was shading with sufficient overhangs as well as the limited usage of glass. They believe they can achieve LEED certification on this project. He described the materials which would be used in the project. He said they have gone through the list, are in good shape, and have registered the project for possible LEED certification. 14. Committee Member Arnold commented on the size of the islands and the step outs. He asked if the step outs would be included in the islands in the parking lots. Principal Planner Sawa said he wasn't sure if the applicant designed it that way but thinks Public Works requires it. Committee Member Arnold d Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 was concerned about people stepping on the landscaping plants. 15. Committee Member Arnold was concerned about the width of the islands. Committee Member Bobbitt replied the size of the islands does not allow for the proper growth of the root structure of the trees and they will not survive. He said the long thin islands don't look like they can sustain trees. Staff replied they are required to be six feet wide. 16. Committee Member Arnold asked why they were putting in turf instead of ground cover. Rick Stokes, of Land Solutions, was introduced and said they have been working with staff on the choice of ground cover. Committee Member Arnold said it would be less costly to use Decomposed Granite iDGI and lantana, and the applicant would save on water and maintenance. Grass is high in maintenance and water usage. 17. Committee Member Arnold said there was turf alongside the Fresh & Easy building. Staff said they included a condition requesting DG and plants instead of turf. 1$. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the problems involved with Chilean Mesquites and Queen Palms. Staff said there was a concern for those two types of trees but wasn't sure if the Committee Members wanted to eliminate those species altogether. Committee Member Bobbitt said Queen Palms will die within a couple ofi years or look terrible. The soil, temperature extremes, everything works against them. They will look good for a while and then they begin to decline. The applicant is usually tong gone by then. The owner of the property will not know and he strongly recommends against using the Queen Palms. He suggested a variety of Fan Palms. He was also concerned about ground covers since they took good at first but when it gets hot tftey don't look as well. He did not want to deny usage of specific plants, but suggested the applicant be careful about placement. 19. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the recommended three to five foot pop outs and asked if staff was going to work out those dimensions with the applicant. Staff replied they would. 20. Committee Member Bobbitt referenced Condition No. 13 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 regarding the Date Palms being deleted from the palette if proposed. Staff replied they were on the plant palette but not on the plans and suggested they not be used. Lt. Committee Member f3obbitt said he does like some use of turf as it cuts down on dust problems. 22. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if staff was concerned about the conditions being addressed before going to the Planning Commission. Staff replied they would make sure all conditions and comments were included in the information for the Planning Commission. 23. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about plans for the monument. Staff said the plans allowed for placement of a monument, but it had not been designed as yet. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he wanted to see what these plans would look like once they were revised. Staff said the Committee Members would see the final landscaping plans. 24. Committee Member Fitzpatrick was concerned about the numbering and key systems on the plans. Rick Stokes, applicant's representative, said the plans were taken from various sources and consequently created different numbering systems. These would be revised and re-numbered for the Planning Commission. The items brought up would not be noticeable once the plans are revised and updated. He pointed to the plans and described how the trucks would be turning and addressed various other concerns the Committee Members had voiced. They would eliminate any plants which had not been approved for the plant palette. They would be eliminating any items that staff had requested be deleted and clean up the plans. 25. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would like to see future plans finalized and cleaned up when they were presented to the ALRC. Mr. Stokes said he was not familiar with the planning process in La Quinta, but the next project he did in La Quinta would be done better. 26. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said somebody needed to address this at an earlier stage. The Committee should not be rubber stamping plans without those plans being finalized. He requested a re#erenced, organized set of plans. R Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 27. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the turf reduction and said there should be a specific amount (ratio) listed. He did not feel confident moving the project forward without seeing the finalized plans. 28. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the monument design and asked if the City would be designing it. Rick Stokes, applicant's representative, said he was not involved in the design. Staff said it would be handled through another department in the City. Rick Stokes said the applicant would provide a nice, landscaped place for the monument. 29. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a standardized design. Staff said previous monuments had been standardized, but future monuments would have to consider new water efficiency standards. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Planning Commission should be advised there were some issues with the monument. Planning Manager Sawyer said there was identification on the plan noting the placement of the monument. 30. Committee Member Bobbin said, as a point of clarification, the Committee was only allowed to see these plans one time. They didn't have a working set of landscape plans so he didn't understand how these issues would be resolved. This Committee is an advisory committee only. Ne gave a brief history of the original seven-rrtember committee and how it evolved into athree-member committee. fie said it is not part of the Committee's charter to have preliminary plans come back. 31. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Carnmittee could deny the plan. Committee Member Bobbin said they could do that. Planning Manager Sawyer said they were working on this at a staff level and he had some of the same questions the Committee brought up. fie wanted to point out some of the conditions were presented as discussion points to obtain the ALRC's input. So they were draft conditions that staff was still working on and wanted the Committee's input. Ttte plans needed to be finalized. They would take care of this before the presentation to the Planning Commission. 32. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a list of 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 conditions that the architectural designers had addressed and staff could make the Committee aware of prior to sending this to the Planning Commission. 33. Committee Member Arnold asked if the plans were revised after the Committee makes their recommendations. Planning Manager Sawyer said in most cases that would be true and explained the process of approval. Staff would continue to work with the applicant until the Planning Commission submission to address those conditions that were question marks. But it is a two-way street as the applicant has to agree to the conditions. Planning Manager Sawyer said staff only has a certain arrtount of time to process the applications and the applicant may not want to make the changes. 34. Committee Member Arnold added it is the Committee's job to make suggestions/recommendations. It is then up to the applicant to incorporate the changes. Planning Manager Sawyer explained the procedures and time constraints involved. 35. Committee Member Fitzpatrick wanted to know how the Committee Members could make sure changes were made. Planning Manager Sawyer said they will be reflected in the minutes and discussed with the applicant. They would encourage them to make the adjustments. Staff is currently working on a new format that would address the issue of including a key. 36. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said ho would like to see the plans organized prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. Michael Flynn, KTGY Group architect, said they have no problem with addressing the conditions presented and would comply prior to Planning Commission presentation. Mr. Stokes said it is their commitment to address those issues before they go to the Planning Commission. 37. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the plans should include the things discussed today and acknowledge those items be included in conditions to the Planning Commission. Staff explained the procedure to include the information. 38. It was moved and seconded by Committee Mernbers Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-00$ recommending approval of the Site Development Permit 2007- 898 as recommended. Unanimously approved. R Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 200II C. Village Use Permit 2007-039; a request of Prest Vuksic Architects for David Chapman for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for two 7,045 square foot single-story office buildings located at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. 1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the Village Guidelines. He said atwo-story building was proposed before and the community objected to it. He asked if they needed to go back to the community to see if they have any objections. Staff said they had a neighborhood meeting and there have been no objections by the community. 3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick had questions about the parking spaces. Staff explained the parking plan which would not have a conflict with the offices because the restaurant did not serve lunch and the offices were closed at night. 4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the covered spaces addressed the 30% covered parking spaces requirement. Staff defined what was involved in the 30%. 5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if any of the spaces included disabled spaces. Staff said those would be included under the carports. 6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if staff had any concerns about the turf requirements. Staff said they would not be adding turf, but removing some. 7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about southern exposures. Staff said there are three foot overhangs to accommodate the southern exposures. 8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there were rental spaces. Staff said they would be tenant spaces. 9. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the amount of restroom facilities. Staff explained how additional facilities may be added as tenant improvements when spaces where rented. A Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2008 10. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the design was consistent with Village Guidelines. He said the buildings should be people friendly and he did not see any of the amenities mentioned in the Guidelines. Staff said the project does provide for some walkability but had to take into consideration it is along Avenue 52. 11. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the City was going to waive the walkability requirement. Staff replied it was not a requirement, just a suggestion. 12. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if this was apedestrian- friendly site. The landscape architects, Dave Munday and Ron Burger with RGA Landscaping, were introduced and pointed out the random flagstone pathways which would invite the public in and were accessible from the public sidewalk. The setting is informal desertscape but designed to be pedestrian friendly. The public sidewalks feed right into the development. He then stepped forward and explained the plans to the Committee Members. 13. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said that appeared to meet with the Village Guidelines criteria. He asked if the sand traps qualified as a landmark. Staff said they were not officially designated landmarks. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he was on the Committee far when the first buildings were proposed and had a very difficult time with denial of the project because of the height of the buildings across the street. He does like the restaurant and the theme. He did receive same comments from the City Council after they approved the original two-story building. He felt this design was much more appropriate for that location and a more than acceptable substitute for this space. 15. Committee Member Bobbitt said the building maintains the Village atmosphere. Committee Member Fitzpatrick brought up a valid point about public access. He would like to see something on this corner to invite people in such as benches, a fountain, etc. He would not feel comfortable unless there were something inviting to draw people in without distracting people working in the offices. He said he would like to see something more inviting on the corner, it had not been achieved across 1n Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 2005 the street in the other buildings. He suggested something subtle be designed appropriate to the Village design theme. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt had a question on the parking plan. The plan showed a new putting green in front of the building, but on the landscape plans it said existing lawn to remain. Is it going to be lawn or a new putting green? Dave Munday said the putting green would remain. Committee Member Bobbitt said it was confusing because the plans differed in what they showed. He would prefer to see some inviting landscaping such as the utilization of shade trees. He pointed out the City's use of benches in various locations. 17. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said there were some nice streetscapes in the Village. Mr. Burger said they might look into adding something low profile, but nice. 18. Committee Member Bobbitt said the plant palette had been modified to suit City needs, but had concerns about the Schinus molle (California Pepper Tree). 19. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was anything sustainable about either of these buildings. Dave Prest, Prest Vuksic, was introduced and said they were starting to do LEED projects. He said the desert presents many challenges for a LEEDS approved project, but they have been including basic energy efficient procedures in their projects. They have to deal with and meet incredible standards for Title 24. They have eight or nine overhangs, low-E glass, and other energy efficient procedures. They are trying to 61end into the desertscape and their photometrics include a light standard; which is an indirect fixture so you don't see the light source at all. Staff put up the photometric plan. 20. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the light fixtures utilized low energy. Mr. Prest said they were an energy-efficient light source. 21. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he did not see any solar usage. Mr. Prest said solar is good for producing electricity and good if you can use photovoltaics. They have done projects with photovoltaics, but nothing to heat water. They are trying to reduce electricity. He used an example of a company they are working with, from Oregon, which takes natural gas which tt Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 200f3 in turn produces hydrogen which in turn produces electricity. He described the energy cell which is about as big as an air conditioning unit. 22. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said there was a lot of focus on water usage, but said there should be some reflection on solar usage. Mr. Prest said these are shell buildings and they only show two bathrooms. When the spaces are rented they will put in their own tenant improvements. 23. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked it they had prospective tenants. Mr. Prest said not at this time. 24. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2008-009 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2007-039 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: A. Staff said Council approved the Water Efficiency Ordinance requiring all new projects to comply with the new CVAG Water Efficiency requirements. In addition to that, from the direction of Planning Commission is that all water features are required to have anon- potable water source. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this included all water features, such as lakes. Staff replied yes. The only exception would be if the Planning Commission approved the water feature without it. They would have to work with the applicants to find a way to find non-potable water access for their water features. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the canal. Staff said the canal is available. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the CVWD's use of running the recyclable pipeline and its availability. Staff wanted to bring it to the Committee's attention to let them know water features would not be using what has become a rare commodity. Committee Member Arnold asked if this applied to new projects only. Staff replied yes. B. Staff said the Planning Commission recommended, and the Council approved a 50% maximum amount of turf. It is now part of the City's Water Efficiency Code Provisions of Title 8. Committee Member Arnold asked for clarification of the definition of the 50%. Staff said it was 50% of the entire site. Committee Mernber Fitzpatrick t9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee February 6, 200II referenced the earlier project and asked how it was affected. Staff said they are looking for ways to minimize turf and use where it is really needed. An example was given regarding turf usage in retention basins. Committee Members cited several examples of when turf would be reduced and by how much. Staff stated 50% was the maximum a8owed. The CVWD standard is not 50%. They also codified the no turf option for model homes. The City is hoping to encourage developers to promote" low water usage landscape. Committee Member Bobbitt explained water running down the streets is not wasted but will eventually go back to replenish the aquifer. He asked if the City would have any grant programs to help people reduce their landscaping. Staff said the City is working with CVWD on a grant program to reduce turf. Committee Member Bobbitt said new plans would have to meet with CVWD and City requirements. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on March 6, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. on February 6, 2008. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ CAROL N WALKER Executive Secretary 1 '2