Loading...
2012 04 04 ALRC MinutesMINUTES ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 4, 2012 CALL TO ORDER 10:05 a.m. A. This regular meeting of the Architectural 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: Richard Gray, Kevin McCune, and Ray Rooker Committee Member Absent: None C. Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit, 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 January 4, 2012. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker /McCune to approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Committee Members McCune and Rooker. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Committee Member Gray. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006 -863 Amendment NO. 1 has been submitted by AV Construction, LLC. for consideration of Architectural, and Unit Landscaping Plans for Alta Verde Coral Mountain (formerly Pasatiempo); Tract 34243; located on the north side of Avenue 58, ' / 4 mile west of Madison Street. Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. J Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 Planning Manager Sawyer asked the Committee if there were any questions of staff. Committee Member Gray asked if the project improvements had been completed. Staff replied that they had. There being no further questions of staff, Planning Manager Sawyer said the applicant had prepared a presentation that they would like to show to the Committee. Mr. Andrew Adler, CEO of Alta Verde Group, 315 S. Beverly Drive, Ste 208, Beverly Hills, CA, introduced himself and gave a brief overview of the company's history and experience, explained the applicant's intent for the proposed project, and described in detail why the architectural design and features were chosen. Mr. Adler noted that the three existing model homes were being repainted to match the proposed development color palette and some design elements that had been perceived as overly ornate had been removed to make them blend in with the new architectural design. Mr. Adler said all of the proposed homes have basic solar systems installed, therefore, a portion of the roofs were flat. He explained the homeowners would be given the opportunity to upgrade from basic solar to level two, three, and so forth, at the time of purchase, and increase the energy efficiency of the house. Mr. Anthony Poon, Principal with Poon Design, Inc., 315 South Beverly Drive, Ste 206, Beverly Hills, CA, introduced himself and said the architectural style was inspired a lot by the Tuscan Italian style in its simplicity and honesty, speaking with the quality of the materials instead of the use of ornaments. He gave a brief overview of the three different color palettes used, as well as the difference of the front doors, garage doors, window color frames, etc. Mr. Adler said the final product was four types of homes with different facades that did not incorporate a lot of ornate elements, the architecture had been left simple, and the landscaping variety had been used almost as a decorative feature. PAReports - ALRO201ZALRC_9- 13 -MALRC Min_44- 12_Approved.doc 2 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 Mr. Adler explained there were six different color palettes combined with three different landscape palettes which essentially create different type homes. Mr. Adler said general improvements had already been made to the site, expected pre -sale date of the homes was to begin in September of 2012, with actual construction commencing at the beginning of 2013. Committee Member Gray asked if there were any sidewalks around the property. Mr. Adler replied there were existing sidewalks within the development leading to the park area which would also be used as a retention basin. Committee Member Gray asked where the pool equipment would be located on the lots. Mr. Adler replied there hadn't been a particular location selected for the pool equipment as it would have to be determined on a case -by -case basis. If there was an accessory structure, it would most likely be placed on the side of it, and if there were no accessory structure, it would be placed on the side of the landscaping wall. Committee Member McCune asked staff what was the required setback for an accessory structure. Principal Planner Nesbit explained what the code requirements were in terms of size, height, and setbacks. Committee Member McCune asked if the pools would be built as part of the homes. Mr. Adler replied the proposed pools and open pool structures /cabanas would be offered as an option to the homeowners. He explained there would be three different pool types available to choose from and the proposed accessory structures would be in compliance with the City code requirements in terms of height and setbacks. Committee Member McCune asked if the pools would have a spa. Mr. Adler said the spa would also be an option for the homeowner to choose from; however, the spa would be incorporated into the pool, leaving the pool size the same. Committee Member McCune asked about the solar option offered with the homes. Mr. Adler explained that the homes would have P:\Reports - ALRC12012WLRC_9- 13- 12\ALRC Min_4- 4- 12_Approved.doc 3 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 base solar system already installed with the inverter located in the garage. Thus, the solar foundation would be in place and it would be up to the owner to decide whether or not to expand upon it. He said provided that the solar tax rebates were still available, it would cover the cost of the upgrade for the homeowner. Committee Member Gray asked if the parapet roof wall would be tall enough to hide the solar panels. Mr. Adler replied it would. Committee Member Gray asked what materials would be used for the pools. Mr. Adler replied it would either be plaster or pebble tech. Committee Member Rooker said he very much liked the project. He expressed a concern regarding the large amount of exposed windows incorporated into the proposed architectural design that were not protected by either an awning or some type of a roof covering which might become an issue during the hot summer months in the desert. He also noted that the proposed the French doors, opening outward, on the back of the homes facing the backyards were too close to the pool and suggested that those be replaced with sliders to eliminate any possible functional issues with the lack of space. Mr. Adler said the design team' had performed detailed incremental studies on the homes in order to ensure that they meet or exceed the established requirements by fifteen percent in order to receive the solar tax credits available. He explained that the orientation of the homes was designed from east to west so that the majority of the exposed windows were not in direct sunlight during the day. He noted that the windows located on the north and south sides of the homes, which would be directly exposed to the sun, had some type of a window treatment. He explained in detail the different window treatments used and the measures that had been taken in order to ensure compliance with Title 24 requirements. Committee Member Rooker said he would have liked for the proposed color palette to be a bit deeper and richer. He also suggested the use of a fuller and richer landscaping palette in order to soften the architectural lines and make the homes appear lusher, as he found the proposed landscaping .palette to be a bit scarce. Mr. Adler replied he was a big supporter of lush landscaping; PAReports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_9- 13- 12\ALRC Min_4-4- 12_Approved.doc 4 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 however, it was against almost all of the current desert scape mandates and water efficiency requirements. He explained why the proposed landscaping palette was chosen and how it was used to make the homes appear plusher. Discussion followed regarding the overall landscaping of the project, the types of trees and brushes used, the shortcomings of the landscape renderings failing to provide a realistic image of what would be actually installed on site, etc. Mr. Chuck Shepardson, ASLA, President of HSA Design Group, 76- 255 Via Sovana, Indian Wells, CA 92210, introduced himself and said that the selected shrub material consisting of Ocotillos, Agaves, Yuccas, etc. were intentionally selected as they would keep their shape and structure over time in comparison with the use of Bougainvillea type shrub material which would be in the hands of whoever would be handling it. Mr. Adler said that he concurred with the architectural team's suggestion to add palm trees to the proposed landscaping palette to give the project an oasis /resort -type feel. Committee Member Gray asked if palm trees would be installed in the front yards. Mr. Adler confirmed. Committee Member Gray asked if landscaping would be installed in the rear yards. Mr. Adler replied that no landscaping would be provided, but the homeowners would have the option to have the developer install the landscaping in the rear yards as an upgrade and choose from three different landscaping design plans. Committee Member Gray asked what landscaping would be installed at the retention basin greenway. Mr. Adler replied that no changes would be made to it. Committee Member McCune asked if it had been maintained over the years. Mr. Adler replied that recently it had been completely redone. Mr. Russell Jones, Construction Manager for Alta Verde Builders, 71 -905 Highway 111, Ste G, Rancho Mirage, CA, introduced P:\Reports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_9- 13- 12WLRC Min_4- 4- 12_Approved.doc 5 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 himself and gave an overview - of the landscaping of the retention basin and the common areas outside and inside the gates. Committee Member McCune asked if the homes facing the retention basin through the rear yards would have a lower back wall than the rest of the homes within the development. Mr. Adler replied that the CC &Rs required that metal fences be installed for the back yards of those homes and that there would be no access to the greenway through the back yards. Discussion followed regarding the treatment for the metal fence and the height and type of retention wall that surrounds the greenway. Committee Member Rooker asked if there was any way to mandate the homeowners to landscape the back yards. Mr. Adler said that such a mandate would not be easily enforceable and explained why. Committee Member Gray asked if any patio area would be provided for the back yards if the homeowners do not select a pool upgrade option. Mr. Adler replied a basic pad would be provided and described its dimensions and finish. Discussion. followed regarding different finish options for the concrete for the driveways, the patios, and how those would blend in with the proposed architecture. Discussion followed regarding the height, slopes, and design of the roof lines, drainage lines, etc. Committee• Member Rooker suggested to leave the comments made by the Committee on the project merely as comments and not include them in the motion, so that the approval of the project is not contingent upon them. Mr. Adler asked the Committee to consider removing bullet points A and B under recommendation #2 of the staff report requesting that the applicant change the arched doors, windows and openings for the existing Lot 40 unit, to make them consistent with the new unit types, and to install a stone veneer treatment on the facade of at least one of the existing units. P:Uteports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_9- 13- 12WLRC Min_4- 4- 12_Approved.doc 6 Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 Mr. Jones said the side walls of the existing units facing the street were currently slump -stone stucco. He noted that those would be replaced with split -face precision block which would help create a similar stone look in between each house. Mr. Adler added that they would like to not have to structurally tear down the existing units and leave them as they were. He explained that metal awnings were being added to the windows and the doors which would hide the existing arches over them. Upon being asked if that addressed staff's concerns, Planning Manger Sawyer noted that staff would like to keep the recommendations as listed in the staff report to ensure consistency within the development. Committee Member Gray asked what color had been selected for the side metal gates of the homes. Mr. Adler said that detail had not yet been finalized, but it would most likely be a soft tan color. The Committee would like the applicant to consider the following comments and suggestions: • Use of sliding doors vs. French doors at rear of units • Possible dog wiring area in common greenbelt • Add better window. treatments for sun protection • Deepen / darken the proposed color palette Add more landscaping and lusher materials to the proposed landscaping palette There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members McCune /Rooker to adopt Minute Motion 2012 -003, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006 -863, Amendment No. 1, as submitted with staff's recommendations, but modifying bullet point A to say: ­All arched doors, windows and openings on the existing units shall be covered with painted metal screen awnings, consistent in design with those of the new unit types." and deleting bullet point B from recommendation #2: Unanimously approved. P:\Reports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_9- 13- 12WLRC Min _4- 4- 12_Approved.doc Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 4, 2012 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member Rooker , said he was not pleased with the status change of the Committee to City employees. Staff explained the reasons that had made the status change necessary. General discussion followed regarding the status change and similar changes that had been implemented in the surrounding cities in the Coachella Valley. Vlll. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: Planning Manager Sawyer gave an overview of the cases that had been presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration and the actions taken. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members McCune /Gray to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 2, 2012. This meeting was adjourned at 11:28 a.m. on April 4, 2012. Respectfully sub fitted, MONIK RAD VA Secretary PAReports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_9- 13- 12\ALRC Min_44- 12_Approved.doc 8