2012 05 08 PC MinutesMINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
May 8, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
7:03 p.m.
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Alderson.
PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Wright, and Chairman Alderson.
ABSENT: Commissioners Weber and Wilkinson.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Principal Engineer
Ed Wimmer, Planning Manager David Sawyer,
Principal Planner Wally Nesbit, and Executive
Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners
Wright /Barrows to approve the minutes of April 24, 2012, as submitted.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wright, and Chairman Alderson. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Commissioners Weber and Wilkinson. ABSTAIN: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006 -863, Amendment #1 a request by AV
Construction for consideration of approval of four (4) new
architectural and unit landscaping plans for Alta Verde Coral Mountain
(formerly Pasatiempo) located on the north side of Avenue 58, ± ' / 4
mile west of Madison Street.
Principal Planner Nesbit presented the staff report, a copy of which is
on file in the Planning Department.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Staff advised the Commission of a correction to the report identifying
the existing units will be completed in a sand finish. Staff clarified
the existing units will painted, as they are currently finished in stucco.
They will not be re -done in the sand finish proposed for the new units.
Staff added there were several letters distributed prior to the meeting;
one of which was from the Santa Rosa Trails Community on the west
side. They had concerns about an iron gate. The gate was built as a
secondary fire access and they wanted to make sure the gate would
be removed and replaced by the continuation of the perimeter wall.
Staff explained the gate was required when the tract was originally
built and that requirement was changed by the fire department. In
addition, there was some fill material deposited in a location against
the west wall which was causing some calcium build -up. That
situation would be cleared up when the lot is graded to finish floor
level. Staff stated specific action was probably not needed with
regard to the wall build -up, but it could be discussed during the
Commission's review of the project.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Barrows asked staff to review where the open space
was located and what was originally approved.
Staff gave an overview of the original approval of that area.
General discussion followed on the location of the iron gate, the use
of the gate as fire access, and its size.
Chairman Alderson asked if it was the developer's intent to remove
the gate and fill the wall in accordingly.
Staff responded they would have to defer to the developer when they
made their presentation.
Commissioner Wright asked about the location of a proposed cart path
gate.
Staff responded they did not know since it had not been proposed.
Chairman Alderson informed the audience that tonight's meeting was
only to discuss the architectural and aesthetic value of the project as
IPM
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
well as the adjoining landscaping. There would be no discussion -of a
proposed new gate or any concerns, with PGA West, that did not
relate to the items he mentioned, as this was not the right forum for
those discussions.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if
there were any questions of the applicant.
Mr. Andrew Adler, President and CEO of Alta Verde Group, 315 South
Beverly Drive #208, Beverly Hills CA land offices in Rancho Mirage),
introduced himself and said they had done a lot of work in terms of
the development of the project and bringing it back to life. Their main
interest was to take a defunct project, of 70 empty lots, and be able
to acquire the project in a manner that they could work through the
project in segments. They've put a tremendous amount of effort back
into re- beautifying the area and part of the contract required the seller,
which was a bank that foreclosed on the project, to have 100% of the
bond improvements completed, to have the City requirements
completely finished, as well as have a road deeded over to the City.
All that has been done. That was a condition of closing and the good
news was that the bonds were now finished and completed and the
warranty bond maintained.
Chairman Alderson asked if the site had been graded.
Principal Engineer Wimmer said it was graded to the configuration of
the original houses and development.
Chairman Alderson asked if they would be moving any mass quantities
of dirt to accommodate the new site layout because it is completed
and bonded.
Principal Engineer Wimmer said there would be no mass grading, just
some minor grading.
Mr. Adler confirmed there was only minor site grading and explained
that as they staked the pads of each house there would be no
substantial grading or change of the community in any manner
whatsoever.
Chairman Alderson asked if the minor grading would include removal
of the dirt adjacent to the wall mentioned earlier.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
Mr. Adler said they had been actively cleaning that up. They had a
meeting with their landscape consultant and had already begun
removing old landscaping, putting in new succulent beds, and painting
the front gates.
Mr. Adler said they had addressed some of the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendations. They had
taken all of their recommendations into the final design of the project
and then outlined specific items that were being addressed; which also
included base solar on the flat roofs of every house.
Chairman Alderson asked if they were going to provide solar power or
the provisions for it.
Mr. Adler responded they were actually providing solar power.. They
would be putting in a base system that could be upgraded two more
levels. As their name Alta Verde implied, they aimed to be a green
and sustainable- oriented developer.
Chairman Alderson asked if the ALRC recommendations had been
incorporated, or were going to be incorporated, into this project.
Mr. Adler said that was correct. He explained they have added a
couple of darker finishes, included some tall palms to be scattered
throughout the community; as well as the dog park idea for the
center's prime recreation and retention basin.
Mr. Adler commented on the fire gate on the west side of the
property, saying they were inclined to complete the wall because it
will be in the back yards. However, they would have to review, with
the City, whether the wall was actually on their property. They would
have to take a look at that because it may have been constructed by
Santa Rosa and could be something that was an accommodation
between the properties. It could be the responsibility of Santa Rosa,
but they are going to check on this and if it is Alta Verde's wall they
will see that it is closed in.
Mr. Adler pointed out the model homes and explained the logic of their
placement; as well as how they planned to revitalize the existing
model homes and their marketing strategy to show the renewal of the
community. They want to promote the idea that the prior failed
development is gone. .
4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
General discussion
building in phases
development.
followed on the placement of the model homes,
and the traffic flow for the best display of the
Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification in terms of the solar,
saying in the ALRC minutes it mentions if solar tax rebates were still
available it would cover the costs to the upgrade to the homeowner.
She asked if that was intended to mean that the tax rebates might
cover the upgrade, not that the applicant was going to provide that
cost.
Mr. Adler responded tax rebates are either State or Federal programs
and they were out of the applicant's control. He explained they paid
for the base installation and then gave some examples of how the
program would work.
Commissioner Barrows said she just wanted to clarify that someone
else was going to pay for the upgrade; not the applicant. It was a little
bit unclear.
Mr. Adler said it was priced in a manner that was attractive to the
buyer because it had tax incentives with it, but the applicant would be
charged to some degree.
Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the ALRC comments
about solar control. She understood it to mean what was being done
to prevent sunlight from windows, etc. because the following
comments had to do with large amounts of exposed windows, and
how those could be protected by awnings or some other shading. She
asked if the applicant could review what was being done to limit the
impact of sunlight on windows because that was a place for
significant heat gain.
Mr. Adler explained how they had minimized some windows, utilized
trellises, dropped the sizes of a few doors, gotten rid of some double
door sets, utilized dramatic overhang features and sun screen shading.
He noted they have gotten rid of a little of the architectural drama in
favor of taking some of the ALRC advice and would incorporate these
changes in the final designs.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
General discussion followed on:
• Title 24 requirements
• Solar protection of the windows /doors
• The use•of alumawood
• Metal clad wood interior doors
• Dismissal of the use of traditional cloth awnings 'as being
incompatible with the architectural style
• Use of metal tubing for the cabana posts
• Fiberglass dual panel garage doors
Chairman Alderson said cabanas were intended as changing rooms for
the swimming pool, and expressed his concern that these cabanas
could; become storage rooms; especially the one that was not fully
enclosed.
Mr. Adler said they were optional structures and the one that was not
fully enclosed was very much in the spirit of resort -style outdoor
dining; possibly with misters around it. _ He added it was basically a
nice shaded structure to dine, sit, or lounge, under. The other was
more of an enclosed structure that could be used for changing or a
little guest structure. It was the buyer's option whether it was to be
enclosed or not, and the developer was currently working on the final
designs
General discussion followed on:
• Price range.
• When the building would begin.
• If the building would be done in increments or all at once.
• The current updating of the existing model homes.
• Construction /completion target dates.
Commissioner Barrows asked if there might be some architecturally
compatible options for solar relief screening; especially on Plan D3.
Mr. Adler said he understood the conditions and they. would take into
advisement the idea of adding a linear„ or alumawood, awning to
come out the back of the master double door set which faced either
west or east.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
General discussion followed on landscaping on the west side of the
homes, lack of protection from the sun, and the developer's
willingness to incorporate changes into the final designs.
Commissioner Wright asked if the cabana structures complied with the
City's architectural guidelines.
Planning Director Johnson responded there were no architectural
guidelines for this type of accessory structure. He did say staff had
added a condition, or stipulation, with regards to use of the enclosed
unit, but from the standpoint of architectural style it was free for
consideration by the developer.
Commissioner Wright asked if the final plans had been done on the
cabanas.
Mr. Adler said the submitted drawing just showed spatial relationships
and explained the type of plans they were working on. He said the
units were optional, but would have to be aesthetically pleasing as
they wanted to be able to sell them.
There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Alderson
asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Jim Taylor 80 -823 Spanish Bay, introduced himself and asked
about the drawing of the site plan on Page 80. He asked if all the lots
on the north end had plans for homes.
Chairman Alderson said that was the way it appeared.
Mr. Taylor directed staff to Page 13, Item 10, which stated "Prior to
issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or
proper functioning of the proposed development." He asked if there
was anything being presented, any special easements, or acquiring of
any additional property that would require this condition.
Principal Planner Nesbit said no. These were standard conditions
placed by the Public Works Department. They really related more to
street improvements, grading operations, and things of that nature.
The Public Works Department would be better able to explain why
they would be attached to this particular project; even though it's
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
pretty much completed in terms of improvements. These conditions
were not intended to infer there was any other access provisions other
than what was shown on the plan. There weren't any ingress /egress
points there.
Mr. Taylor asked if this condition was inferring that these easements
would have to be done before the development could be finished; or if
they could be done in phases.
Staff said a lot of them were related to utility easements; most of
which were -in place. There may be some easements that have to be
revised based on the fact that there are different units with different
utility requirements. He said he would have to defer to the Public
Works Department.
Mr. Taylor referenced a portion of Item 11, which stated ".. proper
functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights
over proposed and /or existing private streets that access public streets
and open space /drainage..." He then asked if the private street ONLY
referred only to those streets within this development.
Staff said yes.
Chairman Alderson commented that if there were any access, or
easement problems they would have shown up in a title search when
the developer bought the property.
Mr. Taylor said he was just trying to get clarification on the reference
to easements.
Mr. Robert Brown, 80 -844 Spanish Bay, introduced himself and told
the Chairman, based on his clear direction earlier, he was withdrawing
his comments.
There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the
public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for
Commission discussion.
Commissioner Barrows commented on:
• The fact she was pleased.with the design of the project.
• The applicant's efforts to address the shading issues.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
• The choice of a new design style, which was still compatible
with the surrounding area.
• The possibility of adding a condition to provide some kind of
shading over the exterior doors as discussed.
Commissioner Wright commented on:
• An abandoned site being resurrected in this economy.
• The modernism look in the Coachella Valley.
• He applauded the ALRC for their comments.
• He agreed with Commissioner Barrows on some design
standards for shading on the west exposure windows.
Chairman Alderson commented on:
• His lack of enthusiasm for the design style.
• How the modernistic, straight lines and low profile looked out of
place with the neighbors.
• How the ALRC recommendations should be included in the
conditions of approval; as well as the recommendations
mentioned by the other Commissioners.
• His concern that the landscape would die and expose the
residences even more.
• His concern that the cabanas will turn into storage sheds.
• He applauded the developer's intent to move forward.
Commissioner Barrows asked staff if the ALRC recommendations were
already incorporated into the conditions of approval.
Staff responded that many of these comments were not made as
recommendations, only suggestions.
General discussion followed on the developer's comments on having
already addressed the ALRC's recommendations and staff's
comments that they had not verified any of that information as yet.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Barrows /Wright to adopt Minute Motion
2012 -003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-
863, Amendment #1 as submitted, with the following additions:
-9-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012
1. Include, as Conditions of Approval, all the ALRC recommendatioris
stated on Page 7 as:
A. Increased solar control provisions;
B. Use of deeper /darker sand plaster finish colors;
C. Addition of more and lusher landscaping materials;
D. Use of slide doors vs. French doors in rear of units;
E. Potential for dog watering fixture /location in the common
greenbelt.
2. Add a condition stating:
Require shading that is architecturally compatible to cover, or
provide'some protection, for the doors and windows that are on
the west - facing exposure.
AYES:. Commissioners Barrows and Wright. NOES: Chairman
Alderson. ABSENT: Commissioners Weber and Wilkinson.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report of the City Council Meeting of May 1, 2012, given by
Chairman Alderson.
B. Commissioner Wright is scheduled to report back on the May 15,
2012, City Council meeting.
C. Commissioner Wright stated The ..Desert Sun meeting calendar was
irregular in their posting of the City's Planning Commission Meetings.
Staff said they would speak with the La Quinta reporter regarding the
addition, of those dates.
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2012 '
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
A. Planning Director Johnson provided information to the Commissioners
on:
1. The General Plan update and an upcoming Study Session
discussion presentation and future public review of the Plan.
2. Interviews for, the City Manager's position and further
information to be presented at the May 15, 2012, City Council
meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioners
Wright /Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission
to the next regular meeting to be held on May 22, 2012. This regular
meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. on May 8, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
_I I_