Loading...
2009 12 02 ALRC MinutesMINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Cluinta, CA December 2, 2009 10:06 a.m. CALL TO ORDER II. III. IV A. This regular meeting. of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B Committee Members Present: Ray Rooker and David Thoms C. Committee Member Absent: Jason Arnold Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Monika Radeva PUBLIC COMMENT: None CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 7, 2009. There being no comments or corrections it vvas moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thoms to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Village Use Permit 2008-042 a request submitted by Dr. Kathryn Carlson, DVM, for consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for the Village Animal Hospital; an 8,752 square foot Veterinary Facility with on-site boarding located east of Eisenhower Drive, between Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Martinez in the Village Commercial District. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the .staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Rooker asked the applicant if any animals would be kept outside and if that was the purpose for the high fencing. Dr. Kathryn Carlson, DVM, 77-895 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, introduced herself and explained that the outside area between the building and the high fence was designated for walking the hospitalized animals on leash and .not for overnight boarding. Committee Member Rooker asked staff if the Village Design Guidelines mandate that the building be designed the same way as the current animal hospital. Staff replied it did not. Committee Member Rooker said he was pleased with the project, but he found the overall mass of the building to be overwhelming for the site and the setbacks to be too small. He said he would like to find a way to mitigate that contrast and make it a bit softer. He suggested the use of a darker color, such as a chocolate brown, instead of the proposed bright white, for the building to soften its massive appearance. Committee Member Rooker expressed his concern about the elevation on Eisenhower Drive as that was the main corner exposure of the building and there was very little in terms of design and landscaping to break up its overwhelming mass. He suggested the use of two or three palm trees in the existing planter as well as some cascading plants on the second floor balconies to soften the impact of the building. Dr. Carlson said she liked the landscaping suggestions and she would take them into consideration. She noted she had considered having cascading plants on the balconies, but then realized that it would cover the artistic design of the screens she wanted to have. Committee Member Rooker noted the cascading plants would be more effective and more cost efficient. Committee Member Rooker expressed his concern about the trash enclosure location as it was too remote, he suggested re-locating it so that it was adjacent to the building. Mr. Brian de Coster, Architect, 77-895 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, introduced himself and explained the trash was taken out daily, after business hours, and the proposed location for the trash enclosure would not be inconvenient. P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Approved.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Rooker said the proposed location of the water fountain made it seem as if it was an afterthought and in the way of the pedestrian walkway. He recommended the presentation of the water feature be more architecturally symmetrical, possibly moving it out by the front column and making it visible from the parking lot. Dr. Carlson explained why the suggested location would not be appropriate for a veterinary clinic and the type of subtle, slow drip, cascading, water feature she had in mind which was not accurately depicted in the plans. Committee Member Rooker said he was pleased with the applicant's explanation. Committee Member Rooker said the north elevation roof fascia and rafter tail on drawing four of the plans seemed to be out of scale. Mr. de Coster said the plans would be corrected and noted that the applicant's intent was to have exposed rafter tails everywhere possible. Committee Member Rooker said he found the 24-inch box trees, proposed for the parking lot, to be a bit small and suggested the use of 36-inch box trees to help break up the concrete a bit. The applicant agreed. Committee Member Rooker asked if there would be an outside landscaped area for waiting animal patients. Dr. Carlson replied there would be some along Avenida Mendoza. Discussion followed about possible additional landscaped area contingent upon compliance with code requirements. Committee Member Thoms said he generally agreed with the above stated comments made by Committee Member Rooker. Committee Member Thoms reiterated Committee Member Booker's suggestion to add vertical plants along Eisenhower Drive. He said he liked the architectural ridge design above the windows, but he noted that a set of windows on the first floor did not have it. He said the ridge added a nice feature to 1:he building and he would like all of the windows to have it. Committee Member Thoms asked if the applicant would keep the current animal hospital in .additional to the proposed new facility. Dr. Carlson replied the current animal Hospital would be relocated to the new building once it was completed. P:\Reports - ALRC~2010\ALRC_4-7-IOWLRC M[N_I2-2-09_Approved.doe 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Thoms asked why the applicant was tearing down the existing building completely and re-building it, instead of just modifying it. Mr. de Coster enumerated several design issues which could not be addressed through a modification. Mr. de Coster said the reason no landscaping was placed along Eisenhower Drive was because there was a concern of whether or not there was sufficient space to place palm trees that would not be too close and hazardous to the building if exposed to high winds. Discussion followed on what types of palm trees might be appropriate to consider in this situation. Committee Member Thoms asked if the finish on the stucco was flat or sand. Dr. Carlson said she would prefer to have smooth finish, however, she might have to accept a sand finish due to cost considerations. Discussion followed regarding different types of building finish options, architectural design features, and color contrasts. Committee Member Thoms said he would have preferred the landscape architect give a presentation to the Committee. He said he found the list of proposed plants to be too extensive and the use of artificial grass unnecessary. Dr. Carlson explained the artificial grass was required, even though it was more expensive, because it was easier to clean and maintain after being used by the hospitalized animals. Committee Member Thoms suggested the use of simple shrub planting along with the artificial grass, and reiterated that the proposed plant list was too diverse. He noted the landscaping on the south side should also be simplified. Discussion followed regarding different types of plants, trees, and other landscaping options. Committee Member Thoms said the landscaping should not be overpowering, but rather complimentary to the building. Committee Member Thoms suggested the removal of the planter identified by the parking lot on the east elevation as it would become a maintenance issue over time. P:~Reporrs - ALRC~2010WLRC_4-7-10~ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Approved.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Rooker asked about the type of material that would be used for the sidewalk by thE; front entrance. He noted the plans had identified two different surfaces, a flat one and a paved one. He suggested the applicant only use one type, either all pavers or all colored tile. The applicant agreed. Committee Member Thoms also agreed with this comment. Committee Member Thoms said he ciid not like the use of wheel- stops in the parking lot because after awhile they seemed to become a maintenance issue. Staff replied the wheel-stops were recommended by the Public Works Department to help regulate the flow of traffic in the appropriate direction as the site circulation was a bit complicated. Committee Member Thoms said he did not like the multi-color roof of the building and suggested the use of a single-color instead. He said it was about simplifying the design with elegant materials. Committee Member Rooker noted he did not have a preference on the roof as it was too high to be really noticed. Committee Member Rooker said his comments and suggestions on the project were merely recommendai:ions and he would not like to include any of them as conditions of <~pproval. Committee Member Thoms agreed with that as well. Staff said the following comments had been made by the Committee for the applicant's and the Planning Commission's consideration, recognizing that these were not required conditions, but rather recommended suggestions: •. The use of a darker color for thie building, such as chocolate brown, to minimize the mass of the building. • Additional palm trees be added along Eisenhower Drive to help break up the massiveness of the building. • The design and placement of the proposed water feature be adjusted, per the applicant's corments, or eliminated. • The size of the oak trees in the parking lot should be increased to 36- from 24-inch (minimum diameter calipers) boxes in the landscaping area. • Add additional dog relief area into the landscaping someplace for waiting animal patients. • Add eyebrows to the set of windows on the "sheer wall" side of the building adjacent to the parking lot. P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Approved.doc S Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 • A smooth finish for the building would be preferred, rather than sand finish. • A single-tone rooftop would be preferred. • Simplify the landscaping palette by reducing the number of different types of plants. Replace the fruitless olives with Palo Verde. • Remove the planter in the sidewalk area on the eastern side at the entry. • The same type flooring should be used throughout for the entry area and the sidewalk, either pavers or concrete. • Cascading plants should be placed on the balconies. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Booker to adopt Minute Motion 2009- 008, recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2008-042 as submitted, with the suggestions as noted above. AYES: Committee Members Rooker and Thoms. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Arnold. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: A. Planning Commission Update Planning Manager Sawyer said as a result of the Joint Planning Commission/Architectural and Landscape Review Committee/City Council meeting held on October 27, 2009, all Final Landscaping Plans applications were now subject to staff's review and approval and would no longer be presented to the ALRC unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission. Committee Member Rooker asked staff if the Committee could procedurally ask the Planning Commission to send a project's Final Landscaping Plans back for ALRC review. Staff replied the Committee could make such a recommendation, but that the final decision was up to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Rooker asked that the motion for VUP 2008-042 be amended to include a recommendation from the Committee that the Final Landscaping Plans be sent back to ALRC for final review. He expressed his concern that such an action could possibly delay the development of a project by as much as thirty days. Staff replied that would be correct and P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Approved.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 suggested the Committee not amend the motion and let the Planning Commission make the determination whether or not there were any significant issues that would trigger an ALRC: review of the final plans. Committee Member Rooker asked if staff could informally present the revised landscaping plans to the Committee for review, if the motion was not amended and the Planning Commission ciid not direct staff to bring the case back to the ALRC. Staff replied they could not hold an informal meeting with the Committee and that the proper procedural process for an information review was that the Committee Members individually request to review the final plans on their own time. Committee Member Thoms said it was not his intention to further complicate the review process or delay the approval of a project. He noted the Committee's responsibility was to review the submitted plans and offer expertise by making comments and recommendations for improvement. However, the Committee could not enforce any recommendations unless the applicant was conditioned to do so by the Planning Commission. Committee Member Rooker asked staff to inform the Planning Director that the Committee would like to have the opportunity to informally and individually review the final revised plans. Committee Member Thoms asked staff if the ALRC could review landscaping plans for the public right-of-way. Staff replied the current procedure only required staff's review. Committee Member Thoms asked if there was a professional landscape architect on staff. Staff replied there was not, however, the City had a licensed landscape architect design and prepare the plans. Planning Manager Sawyer explained the review and approval process for public right-of-way landscaping. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thoms to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on January 6, 2010. This meeting was adjourned at 11:19 a.m. on December 2, 2009. Respectf u fitted, , MONI A RA ~EVA Secretary P:Uteports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC M[N_12-2-09_Approved.doc 7