Loading...
2008 10 01 ALRC MinutesMINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 1, 2008 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:00 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 Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, 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 September 3, 2008. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Fitzpatrick to approve the minutes with the following amendments: Committee Member Fitzpatrick referred to the Committee Member Items section of the minutes stating he did not make the suggestion that the Committee Members review projects in the preliminary stages. Committee Member Rooker pointed out a couple of spelling corrections. Unanimously approved. Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Final Landscaping Plans 2008-039 a request of KTGY Group, Inc., Architects for the review of final landscaping plans for Jefferson Square Shopping Center located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Present were Mike Flynn, Senior Project Director with KTGY Group, Inc., David Closson, Landscape Architect with Closson & Closson, and Catherine Reyes, Project Manager with KTGY Group, Inc. Committee Member Rooker said it appeared the only design issue remaining was the screen wall. Based on his review of the site plans and the architecture of the buildings, he found the developer's proposal to be satisfactory. He thought a simple stucco wall with awater-proof concrete cap on top would be appropriate. The attention would then fall on the plants and the building behind it. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said that "berming" was mentioned in the staff report. Principal Planner Sawa explained that was an either/or option, as an alternative to the wall. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the designer had a preference. Principal Planner Sawa said the designer preferred berming, but there was not enough width to allow the installation of an adequate size berm. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was not in favor of walls since they were usually poorly maintained and debris tended to collect around them, especially during the windy season. He would prefer some type of wrought iron fencing with planting to add a more aesthetic look. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the wall was shown on the plans. Ms. Catherine Reyes, Project Manager, directed him to the plans submitted which showed the wall's design and location. Discussion regarding the location and design of the 2 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 wall followed. Committee Member Fitzpatrick wanted to confirm the application only allowed buildings 1, 2, and 3 to be built. Buildings "A" and "B" would be built at a later date. He asked if overall final landscaping plans would be submitted for the entire site. Principal Planner Sawa replied it was likely final landscaping plans would be submitted individually for each remaining building. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the project had gone through some type of a site plan approval. Planning Manager David Sawyer replied the entire center had already gone through the approval process with the exception of the Major "A" building. Planning Manager Sawyer said the landscaping plans presented before the Committee were to be examined for consistency with the previously approved conceptual site plans. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Committee had conceptually approved the architectural style and type of the project. Planning Manager Sawyer replied the approval was not conceptual and that the architectural style had already been determined. He clarified that the Committee was only to review the final landscaping. The architecture for Major "A" building was taken out of the previously approved plans and would be submitted at a later date. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the architecture of Major "A" building had to be consistent with the rest of the project. Principal Planner Sawa confirmed that was correct. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there had been community meetings with property owners of the surrounding areas. Principal Planner Sawa replied a public hearing notice had been mailed and the neighbors were given an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Flynn added the developer had also held community meetings and feedback was received from one of the adjacent residents regarding a species of tree used at one of the project corners. They were concerned about wind exposure. That suggestion prompted the replacement of the trees with ones that would create less debris. 3 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick had a question about the tree species and any type of nuisance they could cause during their blooming and blossoming periods. Committee Member Arnold replied the trees identified in the plans were well selected for the location. Mr. Closson added that he did not foresee any nuisance problems for the adjacent residents. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked staff if the plans were satisfactory and staff confirmed they were. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if this was the project located on the northeast corner where a "Welcome to La Quinta" monument sign was to be placed. Principal Planner Sawa stated the applicant had allocated an area for the sign to be installed by the City after the project was completed. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked the applicant if they had any objections to the staff's recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Flynn replied the applicant would comply. Committee Member Fitzpatrick inquired if there were any records showing that the community meetings were held. Principal Planner Sawa explained that concerned neighbors attended the City Council meeting and voiced their questions and concerns. They were then recorded in the City Council minutes. Committee Member Arnold said he thought the project was very beautiful. He was glad to see it being built at the corner. He stated he looked forward to having the "Welcome to La Quinta" sign which would blend well with the planned plant palette. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked for clarification on the irrigation system being tied to a main line. Committee Member Arnold explained the procedure involved. Committee Member Fitzpatrick inquired if there was some type of monitoring procedure to ensure the landscaping was properly maintained. Committee Member Arnold replied it would be the developer's responsibility to maintain the landscaping and during the first year the installer would replace dead plants. Ms. Reyes said the developer would maintain the landscaping and shopping center's appearance in order to attract new tenants. Mr. Flynn said the maintenance ultimately fell on the 4 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1.2008 property manager which in this instance was Regency Centers, one of the major retail and owner operators of shopping centers across the country. Planning Manager Sawyer added that if maintenance of landscaping were to become a problem, the mechanism for addressing the issue had been set forth by a condition of approval requirement for maintenance. If the shopping center were out of compliance, the City would be notified in one of three ways: 1) through a code enforcement officer, 2) a staff member, or 3) a citizen. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Fitzpatrick to adopt Minute Motion 2008-020, recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2008-039 with deletion of Condition No. 2 (as stated below): 2. The screen walls (parking lot and drive-thru) adjacent to Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided with additional decorative treatment, such as a stone or concrete cap, oversized stucco covered block on top, etc. to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked Committee Member Rooker if during the last meeting he had stated that it would be a good idea for the Committee to meet with staff prior to having a project presented to the Committee for review. Committee Member Rooker replied that was incorrect and clarified what he had said was that the Committee's responsibility was to make design decisions based on the City's recommendations, but it appeared that by the time a project was presented to the Committee for review it was very difficult to make any substantial changes. For example, in the case presented at the last meeting, Committee Member Rooker would have liked to change the footprint of the building, but there wasn't any possibility of altering the plans as the project had already gone too far into the s Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 development process and staff had already considered four or five different footprints. He expressed his suggestion that in such instances where difficulties were encountered in deciding the best way to proceed with a project, it might be to everyone's advantage to consult with the Committee Members informally and seek their expertise and advise. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the minutes stated different and quoted the last paragraph on page 12 and the top two paragraphs on page 13 from the ALRC minutes of September 3, 2008. Committee Member Rooker added the comment he did not understand the reason the ALRC reviewed a project such as the one presented today (FLP 08-039-. The Committee was asked to merely verify that the concerns at the preliminary design stage were met. He thought staff could have easily verified that and the ALRC review was unnecessary. He suggested that staff review this policy and recommended that type of project review be done administratively, thus, saving the applicant time and expense. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he disagreed and the Committee had a lot to consider in reviewing a case. He stated he would also like to follow up and find out if applicants tended to take into consideration the recommendations suggested by the ARLC and not rely solely on staff to follow through. He also wanted to hear the Planning Commission's comments about the projects as well. He gave the example of the Silverock Clubhouse project presented by Assistant City Manager Doug Evans. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would have preferred more information when it was presented to the ALRC. He didn't have a good idea of what the building was going to look like. He had a better idea when he saw the rendering in the paper and realized how beautiful it really was. He asked why those images were not included in the presentation to the ALRC. He said he would prefer to have a better conception in the preliminary stage what the project would look like at the end. Committee Member Arnold said it was very rewarding for the Committee to see their recommendations incorporated into the projects. Committee Member Arnold excused himself from the meeting at 10:39 a.m. 6 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 Committee Member Rooker explained when commenting on the policy procedure for final review, he was specifically referring to the case presented to the Committee in which the only issue they could comment on was the design of the wall. Planning Manager Sawyer said it was policy direction from the Planning Commission to present cases to the ALRC for final review. The intent of the procedure was to cover applications where the administrative approving body had made a recommendation for the applicant and staff to work on a better solution to a problem which the Commission did not want to address during a public hearing. Thus, approval would not be granted unless there was compliance with the recommendation. It would not have to go back to the Planning Commission, but to the ALRC for approval of final landscaping plans and assurance of design compliance. Not all projects have such design issues. Some are very straight-forward with regard to the conditions of approval. Planning Manager Sawyer suggested that if the Committee felt strongly about this issue they could suggest it as a topic to be discussed at the upcoming Joint Meeting with City Council on November 25, 2008. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said Committee Member Rooker's reasoning on the approval process could be applied to any of the cases they reviewed. You could then argue that the Committee could be eliminated all together and staff would have review authority. Committee Member Rooker replied that he disagreed with Committee Member Fitzpatrick's comment. He explained there was a logical cut off point, for example, if there were fifteen design items for the Committee to review, the case should be presented for final approval versus a review on a minor design item. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was not disagreeing; however, the same argument could be used for any of the cases and questioned why the Committee needed to review the applications at all. If there were only one or two issues, the developer and staff could resolve them. In this instance, the issue was a minor wall, but in other cases it has been an extensive deliberative process between staff and the developer. 7 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the Committee's history. Planning Manager Sawyer replied the Committee began as a Design Review Board with extensive review, then it was disbanded and revived in its current capacity as the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 2.29.040. VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: Planning Commission Update: Planning Manager David Sawyer said the Andalusia project by T.D. Desert Development was presented to the Planning Commission on September 23, 2008. It was approved, as recommended, with the exception of the elimination of the front yard turf, but with an allowance to install artificial turf, if the applicant chose to do so. Committee Member Rooker said his understanding was that the Planning Commission was only concerned about turf being used in new shopping centers along Highway 111. He asked if this concern had also been extended to residential developments. Planning Manager Sawyer replied the Planning Commission conditioned this case in this manner, but this is not a standard policy. Committee Member Rooker asked if this was a topic that could be discussed with City Council during the joint meeting on November 25, 2008. Planning Manager Sawyer replied that it could be. Committee Member Fitzpatrick talked about an article he had read in the newspaper regarding the City of Fresno. The City was planning an urban water conservation program where they would buy back lawns, convert them to desert landscape and would provide for their maintenance. Committee Member Rooker said he had also heard of this plan. 8 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes October 1, 2008 IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Fitzpatrick to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 5, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 10:46 a.m. on October 1, 2008. Respectfulysubm' ed,ni/ ~ , .' MONIKA RAD A Secretary 9