Loading...
2008 11 05 ALRC MinutesMINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 5, 2008 10:05 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Ronald Fitzpatrick and Ray Rooker. Committee Member Arnold joined the meeting at 10:30 a.m. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: Richard Petri, 78-810 Sunbrook Lane, La Quinta, CA 92253, introduced himself and said his property was located between Miles Avenue and Coldbrook Lane in La Quinta. Mr. Petri presented the Committee with pictures of a wall he claimed was located on City property that was falling down and the landscaping was not maintained. Mr. Petri stated that he had reported this to the City Manager, the Mayor, the Planning Department, and the person in charge of landscaping the area. The wall is in close proximity to Mr. Petri's property. He said the wall was becoming a fire hazard. He presented pictures to the Committee showing there was no landscaping, debris had collected all around the yard, and pipes were exposed. Mr. Petri said he lived right across the street from the Vista Dunes Courtyard Homes located on the north side of Miles Avenue, west of Adams Street. He stated that he had been told that the City could not do anything about the unmaintained property, but yet Vista Dunes' landscaping was taken care of. Mr. Petri informed the Committee that Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 he would like the City to take care of the wall and nuisance landscaping because if it fell down it would fall on his property. Planning Manager David Sawyer informed Mr. Petri that the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee did not have any responsibility or authority over the issue he presented. Mr. Petri asked who would be the responsible party to address this issue. Planning Manager Sawyer replied he would need more detail regarding the property and its location. He invited Mr. Petri to stop by the Planning Department counter after the meeting so staff could obtain the necessary information from Mr. Petri and address the problem. Mr. Petri asked staff to provide him with a copy of the minutes as proof that he had informed the City of this issue in case it was to became a problem in the future. Committee Member Rooker expressed interest in examining the site and made a note of Mr. Petri's address. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked staff if the City's Public Works Department would be the one handling complaints of this type. Planning Manager Sawyer replied that without more detailed information regarding the exact location of the property, staff would not be able to answer any questions. Planning Manager Sawyer asked Mr. Petri to please stop by the Planning Department counter after the meeting in order for staff to obtain the necessary information from him to address the issue. II1. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 1, 2008. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Booker to approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Committee Member Fitzpatrick and Rooker. NOES: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Arnold. 2 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Final Landscaping Plans 2008-041 a request of The Quarry at La Quinta for the review of final landscaping plans for the expansion of a maintenance facility located north of Tom Fazio Lane and south of Cahuilla Park Road within the Quarry at La Quinta. 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 Luke Taylor, Designer with RGA Landscape Architects, Inc. and Charles W. McBride, Principal Architect with Design Build Structures, Inc. Committee Member Rooker asked staff why there was a need to remove the existing Oleanders. Principal Planner Mogensen replied that Oleanders are a poisonous species to pets, horses, and people and the City usually required they be removed along areas where residents would normally walk their pets; as in the case along Tom Fazio Lane and Cahuilla Park Road. Even though, Cahuilla Park Road was not a public right-of-way, it had been identified as a location of the multi-purpose park trail in the General Plan. Tom Fazio Lane, a private street, fit the criteria of where people normally walk their pets, and therefore, staff strongly discouraged the use of Oleanders along such locations. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the report stated that Oleanders would be acceptable if they were properly maintained. He inquired as to what "properly maintained" meant. Principal Planner Mogensen replied that the phrase did not necessarily refer to maintaining the plants, but rather to their location. Thus, staff required that Oleanders be removed from any area that was viewed as a possible location for people to walk their pets or utilize it for any other types of recreational activities such as in a park, playground areas, trails, etc. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked the applicant why the plans did not show the Oleanders removed. Mr. Luke Taylor replied that he did not realize there were Oleanders around the entire property. The applicant had already planned on removing 3 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 the Oleanders along Cahuilla Park Road because the plants did not blend in well with the designed landscaping. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant would comply with staff's condition to remove the Oleanders on Tom Fazio Lane. Mr. Charles McBride explained the removal of the Oleanders was not reflected on the plans because he did not remember the condition. Since he was now aware of it, he would ensure the applicant complied with the condition. Committee Member Rooker said Oleanders were typically used along the freeway and were not the appropriate plant species to use for the entrance of a high-end development on Tom Fazio Lane. Committee Member Fitzpatrick wanted to confirm that the applicant and staff had come to an agreement on the enhancement of the maintenance building landscaping along Cahuilla Park Road and Tom Fazio Lane. Mr. Taylor confirmed an agreement had been reached. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Booker to adopt Minute Motion 2008-021, recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2008-041, as recommended. AYES: Committee Member Fitzpatrick and Rooker. NOES: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Arnold. B. Final Landscaping Plans 2008-043 a request of Washington 111, Ltd. (Bill Sanchez) for the review of final landscaping plans for Phase 4 of the Washington Park Shopping Center located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Present was Mr. Luke Taylor, Designer with RGA Landscape Architects, Inc. Committee Member Rooker asked staff if the revised plans should show the water features as removed. Staff replied the water features had been removed from the drawings. 4 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked staff why the applicant had not indicated the hanging, or climbing, landscaping on the retaining walls as conditioned. Principal Planner Mogensen replied that it was merely an oversight by the landscape architect. Mr. Taylor explained he did not realize there was a retaining wall on the back of Cahuilla Park Road and that was what the condition referenced. He said the applicant would comply with the condition. Committee Member Fitzpatrick expressed concern regarding the Planning Commission's position on water features. He elaborated that developments posed intrusions on the environment. He added the least we could do was try to soften it by adding nice landscaping and water features because where there was water, there was life. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said water features would make the proposed shopping center more people-friendly. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked the applicant if the planters in the parking lot, identified on the plans were the appropriate size. Mr. Taylor replied the planters were six by eight feet and met staff's requirements. Jason Arnold joined the Committee at 10:30 a.m. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked staff if there was a way to inform the Planning Commission that he was concerned about their decision to remove the water feature. Committee Member Rooker said he concurred with Committee Member Fitzpatrick and asked about the proper protocol to inform the Planning Commission of the ALRC's position. Planning Director Les Johnson replied the appropriate way to address the Committee's concern would be during the Joint Meeting with City Council on November 25, 2008. He also mentioned that he could look into a joint meeting between the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and the Planning Commission during which such concerns could be addressed. He said he would add their concerns, under Director's Comments, in an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. 5 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 Planning Director Johnson commented that during the last Planning Commission's position was that it was not opposed to water features, but wanted them to be well thought out, from the standpoint of conservation. The Commission would not favor large pools of water resulting in high evaporation when it was one hundred and ten degrees Fahrenheit outside. However, a creative approach to water features such as smaller pumps with water trickling down, versus large pumps with water spraying up, would be acceptable. The Planning Commission's position was based on the minimal potential benefit provided by water features to the general public in comparison to the great amounts of energy and water consumed. Unfortunately, this position was formed based on other projects and in particular to water features placed at the entrances of developments in which the residents never had any direct connectivity, but only a remote visual reference while driving through. This led to the blanket approach of considering water features on a case-by-case basis. However, the Commission did allow the Shoppes at La Quinta development to keep three out of the four water features proposed, though the Commission asked the developer to come back with a revised well-thought out efficient design. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if he could make a motion to recommend approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2008-043 with the stipulation for the water feature to be considered for reinstatement by the Planning Director. Planning Director Johnson said the Site Development entitlement had been approved. Staff could only report the Committee's concerns to the Planning Commission. He could not administratively reinstate it as the Planning Commission had already ruled on it. Committee Member Rooker also commented that a joint meeting between the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and the Planning Commission would be a very good opportunity for a discussion the use of turf and water features. Committee Member Rooker said he was pleased with the exhibits provided which showed the entire neighborhood, how the parking lots meandered and connected to one another, as well as all of the adjacent buildings. He said this additional 6 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 information was very helpful to him in reviewing the plans and he would like to see the same information being provided for future projects. Further, the architecture at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47 was very sensitively done. He hoped the Fresh & Easy grocery store at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive would reflect the same sensitivity. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-022, recommending approval of Final Landscape Plans 2008-043, as recommended, with the understanding that the Committee was concerned over the Planning Commission's decision to remove the water feature. Unanimously approved. C. Final Landscaping Plans 2008-042 a request of R. T. Hughes Company, Inc. for the review of final landscaping plans for Malaga Estates, Tentative Tract Map 33597, located on the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Committee could review the project and make a recommendation on it without the applicant being present at the meeting. Staff replied the Committee could review it. Committee Member Rooker said he did not see any problems with the project. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the water feature proposed on this project because it was not interactive and its sole purpose was to enhance the look of the community. Planning Director Johnson explained this was the project that brought the matter of water-efficiency forward and City Council asked staff to establish standards for water features. This was a subsequent action to the appeal being considered by Council who did not uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to remove the water feature because there were no established standard. Concurrently, staff had received and was processing Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 CVWD's water-efficient landscaping provisions. The proposed CVWD ordinance came on the heels of the Malaga Estates landscaping in regards to turf and water features. This was one of the reasons why La Quinta's Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance was more conservative than the CVWD's ordinance. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked what was the City Council's vote on the appeal. Planning Director Johnson replied he could not recall exactly, but he believed that it was unanimous in overturning the Planning Commission's decision. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would like to have more presentation materials and exhibits with projects as it aids in visualization of how everything would come together. He said he drove through the project, but the site was under construction and he could not get an idea of what the final product would be. He could not get a feel for the height of the buildings, or what kind of materials would be used as well as placement. This made it difficult for him to make an aesthetic judgment on the project. Committee Member Fitzpatrick expressed his dissatisfaction with the submitted plans as they appeared to him to be more of construction drawings with very detailed information. It did not give him any idea as to aesthetics. He said he noticed, while he was at the project, that the developer had used beautiful gates and other features suggesting it to be a high-end development, but he could not get any visuals from the plans provided. Neither could he understand what type of homeowners the developer was targeting and why there were only 57 units identified. Planning Director Johnson replied that staff would try to answer the Committee's questions to the best of their ability; however, it was important to keep in mind that these were Final Landscaping Plans which were the end of the process. The map, which had already been approved, was presented to the ALRC at that time. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he wanted to obtain some background information on the project. Planning Director Johnson commented that historically there was a ten-year Committee Member on the ALRC who could update the other s Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 members on the history. Currently the Committee was faced with the challenge of reviewing projects that had been presented a year or two prior to their term. Planning Director Johnson provided the Committee with the requested background information on the project at hand. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would preferred to have seen what the proposed elevations were and the landscaping at the front. He expressed his confusion as to why the turf restrictions were being applied to some projects and not to others. Planning Director Johnson explained the reason was because this project was entitled prior to the current water- efficiency provisions and the applicant complied with the provisions in place at that time. Committee Member Arnold asked if the Committee was recommending approval of the entire final landscaping plans. Planning Director Johnson replied that recommendation for approval encompassed the wall as well. Assistant Planner Ceja said the staff recommendation for the ALRC's action included two recommendations: 1) Recommend approval of the final landscaping plans to the Planning Director and, 2) Recommend approval of the wall plans to the Planning Commission There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Rooker to adopt Minute Motion 2008-023, recommending approval of Final Landscape Plans 2008-042, as recommended. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he received an a-mail from staff requesting Committee Members to forward suggestions for discussion at the Joint City Council Meeting on November 25, 2008. Unfortunately, he was out of town and did not get the a-mail until after the due date. He asked staff if there were any items that the Committee needed to be aware of to discuss with City Council. 9 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 Planning Director Johnson said the actual agenda items would have to be established. He was reviewing suggestions and would present a list to the City Manager for consideration. He said common-themed suggestions would be consolidated and staff would prepare reports for those items consisting of a few descriptive paragraphs. That helps keep the discussion focused as there is only forty-five minutes available for discussion. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Committee had the full forty-five minutes with the Council. Planning Director Johnson explained the protocol for the meeting. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he had been asked by some residents, the reason for some median strips to be completed and others half finished, or abandoned. He asked staff who would address such issues and if the medians were a shared responsibility of the City and the County. Planning Director Johnson replied there was no one authority responsible for medians and it depended on the location of the median. He presented the example of the section of Monroe Street where Committee Member Fitzpatrick resided. He said the median was a shared responsibility between the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. The median on Avenue 52 between Madison and Monroe Streets was a shared responsibility between the Cities of Indio and La Quinta. Planning Director Johnson said in both situations the City of La Quinta had been ahead of the neighboring jurisdictions with improvements which created some issues. He gave the example of the Avenue 52 median in front of one of the projects on the La Quinta side there is a concrete extruded curb and the other side, which is under a different jurisdiction, has an asphalt formed curb. This is because the other jurisdiction was not willing to commit financially and participate in the improvements when they were being put in. The street improvements were mandated by the City of La Quinta from the developer through the entitlement process. If the property across the street, under the other jurisdiction, were to develop, that would be when the street improvements would be mandated from the developer by the other jurisdiction. Planning Director Johnson explained that these types of street improvements were managed by subdivision improvement agreements and entered into at the time of the final map approval. The subdivision improvement agreements required the developer to io Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 establish bonds and determined a time period for execution and completion of the improvements. However, the time frame could be extended. He said during the last City Council Meeting there were four or five subdivision improvement agreements that had been presented for time extensions. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a limit to the number of extensions that could be obtained. Planning Director Johnson replied there was no established limit and it was up to the discretion of the City Council to make that decision. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the status of the Farmers Market that was continued by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Johnson replied there were two items on the agenda. One was for a Certified Farmers Market in Old Town to be held on Sundays, which was approved and their opening would be on Sunday, November 9, 2008. The second item was for a Certified Farmers Market/Bazaar at the Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to be held on Saturdays, which was continued to the November 25, 2008, meeting. The applicant for the secorid item modified her request by eliminating the farmers market and focusing more on the bazaar. However, the Planning Commission raised some questions that the applicant could not answer at the meeting. The item was continued again and it appeared the applicant might withdraw her application due to concerns expressed, by residents, regarding the proposal. Committee Member Rooker said he submitted some items as discussion topics for the joint meeting. He expressed his frustration with the fact that by the time projects were presented to the ALRC, it was too late in the process for the. Committee to be able to address anything. Committee Member Rooker said that if all the Committee was doing was verifying that a wall was put in as instructed by the Planning Commission then staff could do the same. He suggested that for the ARLC recommendations to be effective the Committee needed to review the projects early on and not when they were already in the construction drawing phase. Further, he suggested that staff have some architectural design guidelines such as in Old Town. Planning Director Johnson replied that Old Town was a project in The Village and that general design guidelines had already been established for The Village. Those same guidelines were applied to the project located on Desert Club Drive and Calle Tampico and it was found that the project was in conformance with the guidelines. Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 5, 2008 VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: Planning Commission Update: Planning Manager David Sawyer said the Shoppes at La Quinta project was reviewed by the Planning Commission during the last meeting and recommended approval to the City Council. The project was forwarded to City Council for official approval because of its proximity and height of some of the buildings to the adjacent residential areas. City Council would review the project as a Consent Item unless a Council Member pulled it off calendar, then it would have to be reviewed as a Public Hearing item, at a later date. The Planning Commission recommended approval with consideration of the comments made by the ALRC, with the exception of the water feature. The project will be returned to the Planning Commission for review of the water feature design changes. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Booker to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on December 3, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 11:22 a.m. on November 5, 2008. Respectfully s mitted, MONI A R EVA Secretary 1z