Loading...
2008 09 03 ALRC MinutesMINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 3, 2008 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:01 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Jason Arnold, Ronald Fitzpatrick, and Ray Rooker. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of August 6, 2008. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Rooker to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2008-904 a request of T.D. Desert Development for the Architectural and Landscaping Plans for Six New Prototypical Unit Types and a Sales Center For Construction in Andalusia located on the East side of Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Representing the applicant, present were Mr. Mark Pekarek, Architect and Mr. Ronald Gregory, President of RGA Landscape Architects Mr. Pekarek explained it was customary for the developer to modify the plans every three years based on feedback received from the homeowners, which in turn added to the overall character of the project. He said plans numbered 1 1, 13, 14, and 16 had already been approved by the previous Site Development Permit. The modifications to those plans included minor interior changes and three new elevations. Plans numbered 12 and 15 were brand new. In addition, some of the streets in the development border the south side of the property, which include great mountain views from the front of the house. The back of the houses face the golf course, but the developer wanted the homeowners to be able to take advantage of the beautiful mountain views from the front of the house by adding a partial second story over the garage. Mr. Pekarek said different parts of the project had different height limits. Due to image corridor code requirements, half of the project was subject to a 22 foot height limit. The other half of the project was subject to a 28 foot height limit. Because most of the new phases were subject to the 28 foot height limit, the developer would like to give the homeowners the choice of an upstairs option. Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick thanked staff for the detailed and well organized information presented in the report. He asked staff if the proposed floor plans were consistent with the Specific Plan and the previously approved Site Development Permit. Staff replied the floor plans were in compliance and the modifications were very minor. Committee Member Fitzpatrick wanted to confirm the total number of units was 1,400 in the t 900 acre development. He asked staff if there was a map available reflecting this information. He also asked how many phases were included in the project and how many units were in each phase. Staff z Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 replied there was a map, however, only an aerial map, of the vacant lots, was included in the staff report. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the number of units was subject to change based on the applicant's modifications during the build-out process and what restrictions the Specific Plan posed on the applicant. Planning Director Les Johnson replied the Specific Plan was only to provide a general overview of the parameters of the project. For example, it defined that the architectural design should be a Spanish Old World or a Colonial style, but it did not define the exact elements and features. The same held true with the overall design of the project and how it was built out. The Specific Plan did not dictate the exact lot configuration and design. The configuration of the lots was addressed by the mapping, through the tentative tract map process, and the phasing of the maps. Currently the northwest corner of the project had already been developed and the construction was moving east, closer to Monroe Street, and moving south. Further, Staff was involved only in the phasing of the maps and not in the building of the units. Thus, the phasing of the map might not necessarily match the construction phases of the project. Planning Director Johnson said the applicant might be back in front of the Committee three years from now requesting another modification to the units. He explained the applicant used the same strategy with the Rancho La Quinta project and it was very successful. In addition, the project itself would be very much complemented by the offered diversity of house size and design; however, the overall architectural character would carry on throughout the entire project. Planning Director Johnson acknowledged that a better map should have been included in the staff report showing the Committee the overall general layout of the project. He explained the project boundary was bounded by the land located east of Madison Street, south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and west of Monroe Street. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said an overall general layout map of the project would be very useful to the Committee as the staff report also asks the Committee to address circulation of the site. 3 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Planning Director Johnson explained the Committee was responsible for the review of the design of the homes that would be built on the lots and the proposed model home complex. The major issues with regards to circulation had already been addressed through the previously approved mapping process. Committee Member Fitzpatrick questioned the small size of the lots rear setbacks. Mr. Pekarek replied that the first three proposed plans were on 55-foot wide lots and the other three proposed plans were on 75-foot lots with the typical 108-foot deep lots, which allowed fora 30-foot backyard. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he did not have any more questions and expressed how very much he liked the project and that, it was very well executed. Committee Member Arnold asked staff if the Committee was responsible for reviewing irrigation plans and at what stage of the project would they be provided. Planning Director Johnson replied the irrigation plans would be provided for review through the Final Landscaping Plans approval process. Committee Member Arnold said that there had been time in the past when the irrigation plans had not been included in the Final Landscaping Plans due to a delay in the approval from CVWD. Committee Member Arnold mentioned the Coachella Valley Overseed Certificate Meeting he recently attended to obtain certification to overseed, and that the Best Buy project in La Quinta was brought up as an example because of the drip irrigation soaker hose system installed for the turf which would create problems if the turf was shaved and over seeded as it would not be able to reseed. Committee Member Arnold said if he had reviewed those plans he might have been able to save the applicant the trouble he was experiencing now. Planning Manager David Sawyer explained that the procedure of the preliminary Site Development Permit review was not for staff or the Committee to go over the irrigation plans for any project in that great of a detail. Further, even though the irrigation plans were included in the Final Landscaping Plans which was the final review stage of the project by the Committee, the 4 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 application process required the applicant to have the irrigation plans approved and certified by the CVWD prior to submitting the Final Landscaping Plans to the Planning Department. Planning Director Johnson explained that therefore, Staff heavily relied on the expertise of CVWD's plan checkers despite the fact the ordinance stated the burden was on the City of La Quinta. Thus, staff does not review the irrigation plans in great detail because CVWD performs a very thorough review not only from the calculation aspect of it, but also in regards to the type of irrigation proposed. Planning Director Johnson stated that, indeed, the ultimate responsibility does lie with the City of La Quinta; however, staff greatly relied on the CVWD to provide that expertise. Hence, staff's concern was minimal as the plans had to be approved by the CVWD prior to filing Final Landscaping Plans with the City. Committee Member Arnold said he did not have further questions and congratulated the applicant on the project as he thought it was very sophisticated and very well executed. Committee Member Rooker thanked the applicant for the effort of putting together the presentation materials. He stated he did not approve of Plan 11 as the front door was not visible from the plan shown on the model board. Committee Member Rooker recommended the use of an architectural element such as a roof covering to highlight the front door. He pointed out that the window of the garage was greatly highlighted and the way the plan was designed a normal person would head towards the garage instead of the front door. He would like to see the same type of detail at the entry way as shown for the garage and possibly some type of a paved walkway as well. Committee Member Arnold said the front door for Plan 11 was to the right side of the unit. Mr. Pekarek replied that to the right of the image shown there was an entry gate which showed on the side elevation image of the model and would reveal a tower pulled back in the center of a portico with a high window over the entry. The entry is more visible than would be seen from a street elevation. An alternative paving material was suggested to differentiate the entry from the driveway. s Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick reviewed the elevations on Plan 11 and pointed out that the distinguishing features were not readily apparent from the street elevation. Committee Member Rooker pointed out elevation A had a tower above the front elevation, but elevations Band C did not and reiterated a differentiation of paving materials would distinguish the main entry and the designated walkway from the street. Mr. Pekarek gave the option of plotting the flow of traffic or flipping the house on the lot so when you are looking the entry way would face the "L" shape from the street. Committee Member Rooker stated he did not want the applicant to give a specific design feature that would be used in achieving the suggested differentiation and highlight of the front entry way. He only stated his suggestion and if the applicant agreed they could work on the architectural details. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Fitzpatrick to adopt Minute Motion 2008-018, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-904 with staff's recommended conditions and the following addition: ^ Plan 11 entry be augmented with an accent such as decorative paving. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2008-903 a request of Talbert Development, Inc. for the review of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for a 50,019 Square Foot Retail Center located East of Washington Street and West of Caleo Bay Drive, Approximately 350 Feet North of Avenue 58. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Present were Jeff Talbert, Executive V.P. with Talbert Development, Inc., Michael Buccino, Landscape Architect, and John Abbassi, Architect. Mr. Michael Buccino, Landscape Architect, said that he suggested to the applicant the use of Nandina Domestics, in a 6 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 compact form, in combination with Xylosma and red roses, along the parking area. The Nandina would not require trimming while at the same time it would look very nice, it would stay the right height, and in the winter it would stay very red. Committee Member Rooker said the Nandina and the Xylosma would be redundant as both plants would grow the same way. Mr. Buccino commented that the level of the ground, in this area, had been lowered during grading and the intent was to choose a plant tall enough to provide the proper screening of the oncoming lights. However, the plants would not be placed in a continuous, straight line but would be staggered in a manner that still provides screening of headlights. Mr. Buccino explained he did not want to rely solely on the Xylosma to build up. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the above mentioned plants were the only deviation from the plans provided for the staff report. Mr. Buccino confirmed. Committee Member Rooker thanked the applicant for providing very clear and detailed presentation materials. He requested that staff include a general overall map of the adjacent areas for future projects so that the Committee would be able to see how the proposed project would fit in with the existing structures around it. Committee Member Rooker expressed his disagreement of having the beautiful frontage of the project face Caleo Bay Drive and not Washington Street. He said he viewed this project as a strip center and as such the configuration of it should be facing Washington Street. The way it was proposed the visual impact and the exposure of the tenants were greatly lessened and people would not be able to enjoy and appreciate the delightful architecture from the street, unless being in the shopping center. Mr. John Abbassi, Architect, replied that site plans with different configurations of the positioning of the buildings were submitted, however, based on the feed back received from staff they were not feasible due the fact that the building would be blocking the neighborhood, in addition, the main building would have to be pushed back and it would fall within the 150 foot Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 height limitation, which would not allow for the main building design and it would not have the same effect. Mr. Abbassi explained the applicants attempted to open the site by spacing out the buildings and offering outdoor sitting areas to provide more visibility for the residents as well as some visibility from Washington Street and to invite patrons to stop and enjoy the amenities rather than drive through the site. Planning Director Les Johnson said staff had reviewed four different site plans presented by the developer and the concerns addressed by the Committee regarding the project's rear exposure to Washington Street had been raised. Unfortunately, difficulties were encountered in trying to meet the 22 foot maximum height provision and based on communications with the HOA of the adjacent Lake La Quinta development the residents strongly expressed their disagreement in having the rear of a building face the development as it was in the case of the recently built medical facility. Planning Director Johnson mentioned that during the last meeting with the developer he had expressed his concern not necessarily with the orientation of the building, but with the treatment out on the western end of the building and providing exposure of building A out to Washington Street. Committee Member Arnold pointed out that there was only one access point to the project from Washington Street. Planning Director Johnson replied the applicant didn't have the option to propose more access points as there already was an entrance at the north end of Walgreens, another entrance point would be from the north end of the medical facility, and there was the same stipulation for the vacant lot between the proposed project and the medical facility. Eventually when the entire strip of land was developed it would allow traffic to flow through from one end to the other. Committee Member Rooker asked staff for clarification on the height limitations. Planning Manager Sawyer explained the building needed to meet the base level of 22 foot height limit, but the architectural projections could go above that. Planning Director Johnson mentioned that the back of buildings B and D were taller and had larger mass area than buildings A and C. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen said the general roof line on a Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 buildings Band D was higher because there was a 40 foot height limitation beyond the 150 foot setback. Committee Member Rooker reiterated that he viewed Washington Street as a major street and the frontage of the project should be oriented towards Washington Street and not introverted and facing Caleo Bay Drive. Mr. Jeff Talbert, Executive V.P. with Talbert Development, Inc. and Mr. John Abbassi, Architect went over a couple of different scenarios of reconfiguring the positioning of the buildings and explaining to the Committee why those options were not feasible. Mr. Talbert mentioned he had tried to purchase the vacant property right above the one he acquired; however, the asking price was not comparable to the current market conditions. Further, to aid with exposure and visibility of the future business tenants at the site, Mr. Talbert said the intent was to place a nice monument sign facing Washington Street complemented by Mr. Buccino's excellent landscaping design. Mr. Buccino expressed his concept was to develop a courtyard space that would fit in with La Quinta's outdoor living environment and high end shopping. Committee Member Fitzpatrick expressed he very much liked the project and that it incorporated a lot outdoor living amenities and landscaping. He liked that the buildings were broken apart independent from each other allowing some visibility of the site from Washington Street. He said he was a little bit concerned with the solar exposure on the south elevation. He recommended the applicant should try to relocate four or five parking spaces somewhere else on the project and use that space on the south end for a larger planter area. The applicant said the recommendation would be taken into consideration and the entire length of that area could be shaded. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked what steps the applicant had taken to obtain the LEED certification they were aiming for. Mr. Abbassi replied the applicant was trying to install solar panels on the roof top of the buildings to provide 85 per cent of the energy. However, if the roof top panels were not sufficient to provide that much energy, an alternative would be to design carports and place additional solar panels on the carports. 9 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick questioned if the site was accessible for large trucks for delivery purposes for the future business tenants. Mr. Talbert explained the site did not incorporate mega size stores, therefore a loading dock was deemed unnecessary. The anticipation was that a truck no bigger than a UPS truck would be accessing the site for deliveries. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the surrounding community had expressed any concerns with regards to the project. Mr. Abbassi replied there were no concerns except for lighting and the only light fixtures being used were down lights. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the starkness and lack of articulation along the north elevation of buildings A and B mentioned by staff in the report. Mr. Abbassi explained there were large trees in that area which screened that portion of the building. Committee Member Fitzpatrick talked about the 10 foot walkway through the center of the parking lot with a circular configuration allowing enough space fora seating area. He asked if the area was covered with a trellis and if lighting was installed. Mr. Buccino confirmed and added a misting system would be installed as well and possibly a water feature, however, he was still deciding on the design of the water feature. Mr. Talbert said the misting system they were looking into was from Mist America and it would have a fan incorporated into it making the water very fine so that it cooled the air around rather then getting people wet. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was pleased to see that bike racks were made available as well as ADA compatible pedestrian passes from Washington Street to the project site. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the mentioning of a possible cellular tower being installed on one of the buildings and if that would interfere with the height limitations. Mr. Talbert replied the applicant had not yet applied for the permit, but the intent was that if it were to happen the tower would be placed inside a building and not on the exterior. Principal Planner Mogensen said if the applicant were to apply for a permit, it would be presented to the Committee through a ~o Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Conditional Use Permit. Planning Director Les Johnson explained it would be presented to the Committee only if the permit required architectural changes, if the tower was on the inside, it would not go in front of the Committee. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if this was the last time the project would be reviewed by the Committee. Planning Director Johnson replied the project would be presented again through the Final Landscaping Plans. Planning Manager Sawyer added this was the last time the Committee could make architectural recommendations. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if bench seating would be provided. Mr. Abbassi replied it would. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the sidewalks could be widened. Mr. Talbert replied that was not an option because of fire regulations. Discussion about the length of the parking lot and the size of the sidewalk followed. Planning Director Johnson said the depth of the sidewalk, 12 feet, was not a concern from staff's standpoint. However, solar control was mentioned for the south elevation buildings A and B. There had been other projects in the past and one in particular where the awnings were extended out further on the south side than on the north side to minimize the direct impact of the sun to the front of the building. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would like some measures to be taken in that effect as there were only a few trees that did not provide much shade for the store fronts. He asked if a trellis was planned for as it was hard to tell from the plans. Mr. Abbassi replied that both, trellis and awnings were included in the plans. Mr. Abbassi said he could extend the awnings as suggested by staff and the Committee. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant disagreed with any of staff's recommendations. Mr. Abbassi replied the applicant did not. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was very pleased with the project design, architecture and location and he found it to be very compatible with other local projects. tt Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 , Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if staff felt that the applicant had provided sufficient shading for the buildings on the north elevation. Principal Planner Mogensen replied the applicant had added more trees along the north elevation. Also the plans showed a couple of vertical trellises along the rear section of building A in addition to three archways with a door in the center and a brick archway on the western potion of the north elevation. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if lighting would be installed. Staff replied lantern type light fixtures were identified in the plans. Mr. Buccino added there were some vines as well. Planning Director Johnson explained staff had discussed with the applicant and emphasized the importance of not having the aesthetic of the back of a building in regards to the exposure of building A to Washington Street and to a lesser extend of building C because Walgreens would shield most of it. The applicant utilized changes in material and color to provide architectural diversity, a new concept not previously used in our community, which was why staff listed that as a discussion matter for the Committee as opposed to a recommendation. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-019, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2008-903 with staff's recommended conditions and the admitting of the revised set of landscaping plans submitted before the meeting identifying enhanced landscape areas, a pedestrian ramp from the east and a set of stairs. ROLL CALL: AYES: Committee Members Arnold and Fitzpatrick. NOES: Committee Member Rooker. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member Rooker asked staff what the established procedure was about the ability the Committee had to view plans off the record while in the preliminary process and assist staff in making comments and recommendations to the applicant. His concern was that when plans were presented to the Committee at the Site ~z Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Development Permit stage or the Final Landscaping Plans the Committee was very limited as to the recommendations that could be made due to the final stages of the project and costs associated with the design and presentation materials. Planning Director Johnson replied the Committee had not functioned like that in the past; mainly, based on City Council's direction that the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was a one-stop review in order to eliminate additional delays in the approval process. However, that was not to say that an informal review of conceptual plans would not be possible, but staff would need to look into that and report back to the Committee. Further, the Committee would be able to bring this up with City Council during the Joint Commissions Meeting on November 25`". Committee Member Arnold added a preliminary review of the plans might be helpful to staff and the applicant as the Committee might have better solutions to some of the difficulties experienced during the preliminary process in deciding on architecture, landscaping and irrigation systems. Planning Director Johnson explained that staff heavily relied on the expertise provided by the plan checkers of CVWD for the irrigation system and did not require the applicant to submit detailed irrigation plans at the preliminary stages of the project because the applicant was closely working with CVWD and following their guidance in order to obtain approval. Committee Member Rooker said it would be better if the Committee was involved in the development of a project from the beginning, especially if architectural difficulties were in place as the Committee had the knowledge and expertise to critique and provide alternatives. As it was the Committee's responsibility was to look at what had already been decided and pass judgment on it. Committee Member Fitzpatrick would like to have a better idea of the way the project fit in within the surrounding area. He said sometimes the relativity of the questions he posed to the applicant in regards to an application at hand were questioned by staff and he would like to be able to ask those questions as they were relevant from his stand point. Planning Director Johnson replied that staff was and has always been available and more than willing to meet with the Committee Members and answer any questions they might have on a project and 13 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 encouraged them to please do so, even if it was after hours. He expressed the difficulty with some of the questions, concerns and comments being brought up was that they were out of the scope of the definitive application being reviewed and were in a way back- stepping. For example, the circulation questions discussed today, the Committee should understand that at this point of-the project, it would not be relevant to comment on circulation because it had already been decided by the layout of the map and the map had been tentatively approved. The applicant was only plotting the homes that would go on the lots defined by the tentative tract map. Committee Member Rooker asked if it was his responsibility to contact the City and find out if any messages had been left for him or if the City would contact him. Committee Member Arnold said the City would normally contact the Committee Members and notify them as it had happened to him in the past. Planning Director Johnson confirmed that staff would notify the Committee whenever the public was trying to contact them. VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: Planning Commission Update: Planning Manager David Sawyer said there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the last update. Joint City Council /Commission Meetings Planning Director Johnson said the joint City Council/Commission Meetings was scheduled for Tuesday, November 25`", early in the evening and usually the Planning Commission would go in at 5:00 p.m. The meeting agenda was not available yet, normally two or three topic items would be identified that the Committee as a group felt were important and relevant to discuss with City Council. Staff would consider the proposed items and work with City Manager's office to add the items on the agenda. to Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 1, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. on September 3, 2008. Respectfully MONIKA RADEVA Secretary 15