Loading...
2005 04 06 ALRCIV V ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California APRIL 6, 2005 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2005-008 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of March 2, 2005. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ....................... Applicant ................ Location ................. Request .................. Action .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-810 La Quinta Golf Estates/Troche Design Coachella Drive between Eisenhower Drive and The La Quinta Golf Estates Consideration of final architectural and landscaping plans for the Guardhouse and access improvements Minute Motion 2005- ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE B. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 Applicant ................ Ehline Company/Hermann & Associates Location ................. South side of Avenue 58, % mile west of Madison Street Request .................. Consideration of follow-up review of landscaping plans for four prototypical residential plans, model units, and common area for Tract 31249 — Village at Coral Mountain, Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- C. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-822 Applicant ................ .KKE Architects/The Dunes Business Park, LLC Location ................. North side of Highway 1 1 1, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road Request .................. Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail center Action .................... Minute Motion 2005 D. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-827 Applicant ................ Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc./ Innovative Resort Communities Location ................. Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 Request .................. Consideration of architectural plans for four prototypical residential plans, clubhouse and common area landscaping plans for use in Tract 31732 Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- E. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-828 Applicant ................ Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc./ Innovative Resort Communities Location ................. Southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61 Request .................. Consideration of architectural plans for four prototypical residential , plans, clubhouse and common area landscaping plans for use in Tract 31733 Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- ALRC/AGENDA ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE F. Item .'..::................. Applicant ............... Location ................ Request ................... Action .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-834 David Sacculla, Choice Enterprises Southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue. 60 Consideration of architectural plans for three new prototype residential units with two facades each Minute Motion 2005- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIL COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Meeting of Wednesday, April 6, 2005, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico; the bulletin board at the La Quinta Post Office bulletin board, and at Stater Bros. 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, April 1, 2005. DATED: April 1, 2005 BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California ALRC/AGENDA MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 2, 2005 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Sawa. B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and David Thorns. C. Staff present: Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planner Martin Magana and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. Il. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 111. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 2, 2005. ' There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to approve the Minutes as submitted. Committee Member Christopher abstained. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-821; a request of Steward Woodard for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for a two- story, 29,000 square foot auto dealership located on the southeast corner of Adams Street and Auto Center Drive. 1. Committee Member Thorns excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest as his residence was in close proximity to the project. 2. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant, Steward Woodard, who gave a presentation on the new GAWPD0CS\ALRC\3-2-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 2, 2005 architectural plans and showed a video on the new design. He noted staff was recommending the split face block, but this is not the texture they are trying to achieve. They are requesting a smooth -face off-white painted stucco block wall with a thin band of the split face block. They would also like to request a smooth trowel stucco or black metal on the front of the building. In addition, they would like to change the thin wall to an expanded closed in wall for the stairwell. 3. Committee Member Christopher asked what the white material was that is used for the siding. Mr. Woodard stated it was a painted metal. Committee Member Christopher asked that the black material be metal instead of the stucco. The left elevation for the service area, shows a cantilevered metal detail that appears to be suspended; it is a flat elevation. He would recommend taking the same metal element and putting it over the service door to make the streetscape more interesting. Mr. Woodard stated they would accommodate the Committee's request. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the location of the where the green wall would wrap around. Mr. Woodard noted the location on the site plan. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no objection to the design and believes it does blend in with the rest of the Center. In regard to the split face, he does not see it as an issue. However, the blue doors are bold and jump out at you. Mr. Woodard stated they are trying to meet their national image. He agrees the rear needs the element over the service bay to add some character. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Woodard noted the location on the plans. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-006 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-821, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. Provide samples of actual precision and aggregate block types to the Community Development Department for final approval. b. The top precision block wall shall be a smooth trowel and the bottom a split face to be worked out with staff. G AVVPDOCS\ALRC\3-2-05 ALRC.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 2, 2005 C. Architectural canopy shall be added over the service bay d. Additional depth shall be added on left elevation. Committee Member Thorns rejoined the Committee. B. Site Development Permit 2004-825• a request of Chris McFadden for Family Heritage Church for consideration of architectural plans for classroom building additions to an existing church facility consisting of 2,500 square feet located at the northwest corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if the fountain currently exists. Mr. McFadden stated it is currently a grass area. The fountain area became an alternate to artificial grass. 3. Committee Member Thoms stated there was a trash enclosure at the top west corner of the site and it should be moved to the north. He then asked what the two containers at the north of the site were used for. Mr. McFadden stated they will be relocated to the same area as the trash enclosure after the mobile home park has been better defined and will be screened. Committee Member Thorns agreed the trash enclosure should be relocated to the same area as the storage units. 4. Committee Member Thorns commended them on the design. He asked about the slump block wall as he thought the entire wall should be slump stone. Mr. McFadden stated they will all be landscaped to help eliminate any issues with graffiti. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City had a treatment to handle graffiti. Staff explained the process. 6. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-007 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-825, as recommended by staff and as amended: G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-2-05 ALRC.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 2, 2005 a. The trash enclosure shall be relocated to the north of the site with the storage units. b. The retaining wall shall be a slump stone to match the existing walls. C. Site Development Permit 2004-824; a request of Nasland Engineering for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 136,000 square foot retail store and a gas station located on the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicants and noted the areas that still need to be addressed such as the projections on the front part of the north elevation. 2. Committee Member Thoms suggested the colored thin line on the gas station be between the thickness of the roof on the building and what is proposed. Mr. Birkland, Nasland Engineering stated it is only as thick as the metal joists. Committee Member Thoms noted a discrepancy on the site plan between the engineering plans and the architecture drawings. He asked what type of plant material will be used as palm trees would not adequately screen the bays. It should be something that will grow five to six feet in height; not a hedge, or lantana. He confirmed a wall was proposed on the east side of the parking area that would be at least six feet high. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the rear elevation. Ms. Chris Clarke, developer of the Super Wal-Mart Center, stated there is a lot of undulation and steel to give personality to the big building in the Center. Mr. Birkland noted how they have added the steel canopy to balance the building with the Center. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked the height of the building. Mr. Birkland stated the highest point is 40 feet. The highest point of the parapet is 34-feet 8-inches. Mechanical equipment would be hidden below the parapet. 5. Committee Member Christopher asked about the south elevation, as it will get a fair amount of service traffic; what is the height of the wall between this project and the residential units. Mr. Birkland stated it is an eight foot high screen wall. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-2-05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 2, 2005 Ms. Clarke noted Wal-Mart has a six foot wall with dense landscaping. The trees are dense and tall. Committee Member Christopher suggested this be carried over to this site. 6. Committee Member Thoms stated his concern about the east elevation as it is blank. This elevation faces Dune Palms Road and is highly visible. Mr. Birkland noted some of the architectural details that have been added. They could use a material change for contrast. Committee Member Thoms asked if the stone material was to be used on the wall. Mr. Birkland stated it is the trash compactor wall. Community Development Director Doug Evans asked if the trash compactor could be reversed so it is not facing Dune Palms Road. They had considered reversing the loading dock to bring the trucks in from the other direction. The screen wall would continue around. 7. Committee Member Christopher stated this would be a trade off, aesthetically, but could cause more noise for the residents. The issue of lights shining into the residential units from the trucks entering needs to be addressed. 8. Committee Member Christopher statedhis approval of the project, excused himself as he had a prior appointment he needed to attend, and left the meeting. 9. , There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-005 confirming their recommendation for •approval of Site Development Permit 2004-824, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Revise the site plan to reflect a reversed loading dock area. b. Eliminate the parking along the rear of the building and increase landscaping. C. Reverse the trash compactor entry so that it faces south instead of north and relocate the compressors near the trash compactor and screen it. d. Maintain the architectural treatment and add similar architectural elements to the east facade based on the revised site plan. GBWPDOCS\ALRC\3-2-05 ALRC.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 2, 2005 e. Extend the metal canopy on the north entry elevation out toward the curb as much as possible, similar to the west side of the building. f. The rear landscaping should be similar to the existing landscaping along the rear of the Wal-Mart store. g. Locate the truck turn -around area further north to allow more landscape area between the southern wall and the paved area. h. Construct a screen wall along Dune Palm Road to screen views of the loading dock areas. Gas Station: a. Reduce the thickness of the canopy as much as possible. b. Keep signs below the roof/canopy line. C. Use internally illuminated channel letters as opposed to having lighting mounted on top of the canopy. Light standards should not be mounted on the roof tops/canopies. Unanimously approved VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on April 6, 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 11:41 a.m. on March 2, 2005. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\3-2-05 ALRC.doc 6 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: APRIL 6, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-810 OWNER: LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES ARCHITECT: TROCHE DESIGN (MOISES G. TROCHE) REQUEST: FINAL ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE GUARDHOUSE AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION: COACHELLA DRIVE BETWEEN EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENIDA EL NIDO AT THE LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES Background: This project was approved by the Planning Commission (PC) on July 13, 2004 after review and recommendation by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) on July 7, 2004 (Attachment 1). The PC approval required additional ALRC review of the final architectural and landscaping plans (Attachment 2). The final architectural and landscaping plans have been submitted for approval (Attachment 3). Site History: ._ The La Quinta Golf Estates, a private single family residential development, was created under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside in 1959, and annexed into the City during incorporation in 1982. The development has approximately 160 houses and 10 vacant lots. Detached houses in the immediate area abutting Coachella Drive are typically located on '/4-acre lots. Request: The final working drawings have been submitted for review. Several elements of the plans have been required to have further review prior to issuance of a building permit. The attached excerpts of minutes and conditions of approval provide details of the needed review. P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2004-810 final alrc.doc Issues: In general, the following items require review; 1. Trellis materials and design. Comment: On. Sheet 8.1 glue laminated beams are indicated for the trellis. A portion of the trellis adjacent to the guard house on both sides now has a solid roof to provide protection from the elements. 2. Access gate design and materials. Comments: The pedestrian gate previously was in the center median between the entry and exit gates. It has been moved to the northern side of the exit gate adjacent to the curb (sheet 3.1). Additionally, a four -foot wide sidewalk has been added on the same side as the pedestrian gate because of a Public Works Department Condition of Approval (sheet 3.1). The gate is shown as a painted gate using 2"x2" steel tube frame and 1 /8" steel plate covering with the design cut out (sheet 3.2). The gate elevation plan (sheet 3.2) appears to.shown the gate and center wall height at approximately 10+ feet high. The center wall detail on Sheet 3.2 (detail 1) shows the wall to be 8'-4" high. This needs to be clarified. The Planning Commission approval did show the center wall at 10-feet high. 3. Fire access gate design and materials. Comments: The gate is shown with a 2"x6" steel tube frame and 1 /8" thick steel plate covering and diagonal 2"x2" steel tube plant-ons (sheet 3.2). 4. Review of plant palette. Comments: The plant palette has been provided (sheet L1 .0). Plants are low water users and the only trees are 25' high Date Palms. CVWD has approved the planting and irrigation plans. Four Mediterranean Fan Palms have been removed from the entry site, boxed and will be replanted in the center medians of the entry. 5. Delete bougainvillea planting on trellis. Comments: No planting is specified that will grow on the trellis. Bush bougainvilleas are shown in pots near the trellis' posts. 6. Existing walls Comments: The existing walls adjacent to the entry street are required to be raised one to two feet high for noise attenuation. The Building and Safety Department has not yet received information from the developer to verify if the existing walls can structurally be added to or if new walls will be required. This construction will also require assurances that they will properly be connected to all intersecting walls and be finished to match on both sides. Recommendation: 02 P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2004-810 final alrc.doc Review the plans and determine acceptability based on Planning Commission requirements. Transmitted by: . d Stan ASaWPa,rincipal PI ner Attachments: 1 Excerpts of Planning Commission and Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee minutes 2. Excerpts from Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 3. Final Working Drawings for architecture and landscaping 03 P:\stan\sdp\sdp 2004-810 final alrc.doc ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 b. Conditio/e.ABSENT: e applicant shall make every effort to acquire tt from the eastern property owner for the consa shared entry 'and shall bear the sole expensered entry. ROLL CALL: AYES: ers Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: BSENT: Commissioners Daniels and Krieger.None. Commissioners Dan(Is and Krieger rejoined the Commission. E. Site Development Permit 2004-810; a request of La Quinta Golf Estates for consideration of architectural plans to remodel the existing La Quinta Golf Estates guardhouse and driveway access improvements for the property located on Coachella Drive between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida El Nido. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the report a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2 Chairman Kirk asked if the turning radius at Coachella Drive and Eisenhower Drive was being changed. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer noted the changes that .were occurring at this location. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was a way to accommodate the concerns raised by Mr. Wales Staff noted the problems were raised by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC), but the applicant had not completed the landscape concept plans. The ALRC therefore, requested the final details of the project be brought back to them for review. Therefore, staff has added a condition requiring them to go back to the ALRC. 4. Commissioner Ladner asked if the height of the trellis was addressed. Staff noted it is the primary entrance, and the height was required to"be 13'6" as stipulated by the Fire Department. Commissioner Ladner asked if the residents were supporting the proposal. Staff stated the residents had been informed, but to staff's knowledge, no presentation had been made to the residents regarding the details. L G:1'JJPDOCSIPC Minuies`J-13-o4.doc 04 Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 5. Commissioner Krieger asked if moving vans would be able to enter at this gate. Staff stated yes, but if the Commission had any concerns, they could restrict the trellis to only one lane. 6. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mose Troche stated the project had been presented to the homeowners'. It is the intent to improve the entrance and increase the number of lanes going in and out. He went on to describe the proposal. The height of the trellis is 14 feet. As to maintenance, the beams will be glu-lam and maintenance should be minimal. They are concerned with the requirement for a sidewalk that it would decrease the amount of Landscaping they would like. There is no room and they would like to have it deleted. Commissioner Daniels asked if he had seen Mr. Wale's comments. Mr. Trouch stated, no but the walls would be changed and the structure is set back so as not to block any of his views. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were sidewalks in other places at the entrance. Mr. Trouche stated there are no other sidewalks in the development. i . Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Ted Llewelly, 49-825 El Nido, stated he heard about the project from others and spoke with Mr. Wales. He noted the location of his property and stated he was in favor of the project. Moving the gate back will be a benefit and he understands the necessity, but what he is in objection to is the height of the wall. He would like to see that the wall raised to attenuate the sound on the rear .of his yard and preserve his privacy. The height should be at least seven feet. 9. Mr. Larry Rogelway stated he lives at 44-465 Avenida El Nido, next to Mr. Wales, stated he was the civil engineer for the project. Part of this improvement will include construction of She improvements to the entry, sewers, and fixing safety concerns. He has spoken to Mr. Wales and noted he does not live in the house. Mr. Wales' concern is that he was not told several things when he purchased his house. He had met with Mr. Wales to discuss his concerns and when he left they had reached an agreement on those concerns. G:VWPDOCSAPC Minutesi7-1 3-O4.doc 0 .5 Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 10. Commissioner Quill asked if the wall on Lot 123 was Mr. Llewellyns, or the HOA. Mr. Rogelway stated they had a survey completed and that survey shows the walls are on the property line. Lot 106 has a projection and that owner has agreed to having the wall pushed back to the property line. Each homeowner owns the wall. F. 11. Mr. Greg Holmes, 48-700 San Dimas, representing the HOA, stated he cannot speak for the Board, but will address the issue with the HOA. He noted there is another manned access on Avenue 50 to accommodate deliveries. i 2. There beina no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 1 Commissioner Quill commended the design and safety features of the gate design. in regard to the wail height, he would hope the HOA would work with the adjacent property owners to achieve the change. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ladner/Daniels re adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2004-04E, approving Site Development Permit 2004-810, as recommended: a.. Condition added: HGA, shall contact the adjacent property owners to raise the \vall height to seven feet. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Daniels, Krieger, Ladner, Quill, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ment Permit Use Permit 96-028 Am dment #1, and Sin Permit 2004-797; a request of Home Depot U.S.A., nc. for consideration of architectural plans for a 1,992 square foot one s ry building addition and a 960 square foot outdoor equipment storage area n the west side of the store within Specific Plan 96-027, and considerat of a new building sign on the south facade for the property located t 79-900 Highway 1 1 1 , the northwest corner of Jefferson Street an Highway 1 1 1. G:IWPDOC£;PC Minutes',/-13-04.aoc 1 C1 n 6 ILL uU"r- July\2004 10:00 a.m. I. ER eting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee lled to order at 10:05 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar Orci ;the flag salute.ttee Members present: Bill Bobbin, Frank Christopher, and homs. r ent: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Associate Planner Greg ell, nd Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT. one. III. CONFIRMATION OF T AGENDA: Confirmed. IV, CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there ere any changes to the Minutes of June 2, 2004:. There being changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members oms/Bobbin to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimous approved with Committee Member Christopher abstaining. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-810; a request of Troche Design for consideration of architectural plans to remodel the guardhouse and access improvements for the La Quinta Golf Estates located on Coachella Drive between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida El Nido. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of ,which is on file in the Community Development Department. 07 G:AWPDCCSAALRCV-7-04 WD.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 7, 2004 2. Committee Member Thorns asked that the landscape plan be submitted to the Committee for approval. 3. Committee Member Christopher asked about the wall configuration and how it will impact the two adjacent homes. Staff stated the Homeowners' Association is the applicant and it is assumed they have obtained approval of the four adjoining homes that will be impacted. As the applicant is not present at this meeting, staff is unable to know for certain. Unless something is received in writing, it will be up to the Planning Commission to make that determination. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the wood detail and material for the trellis is not stipulated and is a concern to him in regard to the maintenance. The look is attractive, but bougainvillea plants on a trellis are hard to maintain. Both the plant and wood will be a problem. The gatehouse belongs to the HOA and although it will not be seen from Eisenhower Drive he would like them to know they will have maintenance problems. He would like to see a cross section of the planters to see that they are constructed correctly. Also a`listing of the proposed trees. 5. Committee Member Christopher noted the end caps of the trellis and building are not defined as to how they will be tied together. In totality there seems to be a lot of issues that are pertinent to this remodel that the Committee should review and see that it is done correctly. Yet, it appears that all the information is not before the Committee for them to make a decision. From Eisenhower Drive you will see the redesign of the fire access gates, but the plans do not show any elevation of the new fire gates, which the public, will see. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated the Fire Department did not want them to make any changes to the fire gates. Committee Member Christopher noted the plans submitted show them moved and set back from their existing position. Staff noted it was their understanding that the existing gates will be retained and only moved back. C:AWFD0CSAALFCA7,7-04 WD.doc 08 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 7, 2004 6. Committee Member Thorns stated the fire gates need to be updated to what is being proposed for the gatehouse remodel. 7. Committee Member Christopher asked if staff knew the materials or colors of the gate. Staff stated the elevations submitted are all that has been received. The Committee can make a recommendation regarding what they want to be used. S. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how they could expand the entrance from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction. The landscape area noted on the, plans in front of the gatehouse is not explained as to whether or not it is a raised planter or a six-inch curb. This information should be provided to the Committee. 9. Committee Member Christopher stated he would like to know that the homeowners of the four houses to be affected have been notified and given their input. 10. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to adopt Minute Motion 2004-022 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-810, as recommended by staff and amended: a. Condition added: the landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval by the Committee. b. Condition added: the end caps of the trellis structure and building should be better defined. C. Condition added: the trellis material shall be reviewed and approved by the Committee. It shall consist of a material that will not be a wood timber to withstand the desert weather. d. Condition added: the fire gates shall be upgraded to complement the project. Unanimously approved. VI.RESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. HIMU C:AWPD0CSVALRC\7-7-04 WD.doc - - 3 ATTACHMENT #2 Planning Commission Resolution 2004-045 Conditions of Approval Final Site Development Permit 2004-810 Adopted: July 13, 2004 = Page 9 NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 29. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 30. The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee shall review and approve the plant material palette before working drawings are prepared. The landscapingplan shall indicate the following design elements A. Shrub sizes shall be two -gallon and larger. Bubblers and emitters shall be used to irrigate shrubs and trees. B. Parkway shade trees shall be delivered to the site,in 24-inches or larger boxes with minimum 1.5-inch calipers. Trees shall be a minimum height of nine feet once installed. Double lodge poles (two-inch diameter) shall be used tc stake trees. Palm trees shall be a minimum brown trunk height of six feet tall. Mature Date Palm trees 120` high and taller) may be used for the project as long as the trees are examined by the landscape°architect and/or certified arborist before being brought to the site for installation. C. Existing plant materials to be retained in place shall be noted on the landscape plans prepared for the ALRC. D. Trellis structure landscaping should be reconsidered due to long-term maintenance costs to the HOA and difficulty in maintaining the elevated shrubbery, Bougainvillea should not be used to landscape the top of the trellis. E. If a raised planter (8-inches high or higher) is proposed, the materials and height of the planter shall be approved by the ALRC. QUALITY ASSURANCE 31. The applicant - shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2004-045 Conditions of Approval - Final Site Development Permit 2004-810 Adopted: July 13, 2004 . Page 12 46. The Architecture and Landscape. Review Committee shall review and approve the following project details before working drawings are prepared: , A. Trellisand roof eave construction materials (e.g., glu-lams, metal, etc.) and design elements; E. Construction materials and design elements for.access gates; and C. Construction materials and design elements to upgrade the existing fire access gates, ensuring the gates complement the new project and enhance the Eisenhower Drive corridor. Regarding , the future ALRC meeting, the Community Development Department shall notify the property owner of Lot 93 that the plans are being considered so that Mr. Wales can provide his comments on the plant materials and height of the masonry wall. See Condition #i52. 47. Minor amendments to the architectural plans may. be approved by. the Community Development Director. For review consideration, the applicant shall submit a letter outlining plan changes along with drawings to the Community Development Department before working drawings are prepared. A decision will be made by the Director within ten working days afier submittal of the review request. Maior changes to the overall design of the development shall require Planning Commission review as a public hearing. 4E sign permit application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval for temporary andior permanent signs during review of the final construction plans. 48. This permit shall expire on July 13, 2005, unless a one-year time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. A request for a time extension shall be filed with the Community Development Department on, or before, June 13, 2005. 50. In the event that the permittee violates or fails to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals, certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 51, Access gates shall be constructed of heavy gauge metal. . 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2004-045 Conditions of Approval -,Final Site Development Permit 2004-810 Adopted: July 13, 2004 Page 13 52 The HOA shall work with the adjacent property owners to increase, the height of the property line walls (e.g., 1'-0" and up to 2'-0" high) at no cost to ,the private property owners to reduce traffic noise impacts of the planned project. To reduce traffic noise and maintain privacy, the Homeowners Association (HOA) shall increase the wall height of the properties adjacent to the subject project site from one to two feet should the property owners wish the increase in wall height. The HOA shall bear the entire cost for the increase in wall heights. r ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: APRIL 6, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HERMANN & ASSOCIATES REQUEST: FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS, MODEL UNITS, AND COMMON AREA FOR TR 31249 — VILLAGE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, ±1/2 MILE WEST OF MADISON STREET (SEE ATTACHED VICINITY MAP) Please review the attached information for the April 6 2005 ALRC meeting_ Site Development Permit 2004-820 was recommended for approval by ALRC on January 5, 2005, with Condition 9 (Attachment 1) requiring that individual front yard landscaping for the approved prototype plans be brought back to ALRC and Planning Commission for final acceptance. The applicant has submitted these prototypical landscape plans for each of the four unit designs, along with plans for the four model units, and a landscape plan for the common areas interior to the tract. The package includes exhibits to illustrate the proposed typical plant palette and landscape improvement layout for both the model homes and individual unit plans. The model home sites are intended to be located as marked on the common area plan. Also included are conceptual planting plans for the common areas of the entire tract, similar in design concept to the Stone Creek project, which is located directly across Avenue 58 from this tract. The common area plan was not originally reviewed, and there are no apparent changes to the model units beyond provision of the water allowance calcs for the model complex. Overall, the individual unit concept plans generally employ a minimal use of turf areas. The typical unit landscape plans show turf area adjacent to the curb line, and it is recommended that these areas be further reduced and moved inward from the curb to reduce nuisance water collecting in the curb flow lines. P:\REPORTS - ALRC\04-06-05\SDP 2004-820 EHLINE.DOC The applicant has prepared water use calculations to show compliance with Chapter 8.13, LQMC. Both the models and typical unit landscapes are under the MAWA for their respective hydrozones, based on the plan information provided by the landscape architect. No such calculations have been provided for the common areas landscaping concept plan. All landscaping is required to comply with Chapter 8.13 of the LQMC, relating to Water Efficient Landscaping, and will be verified on the final landscape plans to be submitted at plan check pursuant to our routine procedure for all projects. The landscape palettes for the models and unit typicals show Chilean Mesquite and Bottle trees, which the ALRC has discouraged in past projects. The original approval on these units recommended replacing these species. In general, the landscape palettes presented are acceptable. The applicant has also presented conceptual elevations and sections for entry gates, guard house, Avenue 58 street section and water feature. These are not intended to be technical representations but do give a concept on which to base improvement plans for these features. Staff has no issue with these proposals as concepts, and would advise the ALRC to provide any design direction. Any full-size color illustrations will be provided at the April 6, 2005 ALRC meeting. Staff recommends adoption of a minute motion accepting the plans for Site Development Permit 2004-820, subject to inclusion of the following: 1. Chilean Mesquite and Bottle Tree species shall be removed and/or replaced in the plant palettes employed for SDP 2004-820. 2. Typical front yard turf areas shall be further reduced and moved inward from the street curb. Transmitted by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1 . Conditions of SDP 2004-820, dated 1 /25/05 2. Large scale plans P:\REPORTS - ALRC\04-06-05\SDP 2004-820 EHLINE.DOC 02 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2005-006 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-820 EHLINE COMPANY/CORAL RIDGE L.L.C. JANUARY 25, 2005 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack,- set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Site'Development Permit is valid for one year, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 3. SDP 2004-820 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures, which are incorporated by reference herein, for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 2003-475 • Tentative Tract Map 31249 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these. approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine: precedence. No development permits will be issued until compliance with these conditions has been achieved. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency PAReports- PC\2005\01-25-05\Eh1ine\pccoasdp820.doc 03 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-006 Conditions of Approval Adopted Site Development Permit 2004-820 Ehline Company January 25, 2005 Page 2 The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for City approval. FEES AND DEPOSITS 5. Applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s) 7. Prior to building permit issuance, parkland dedication fees shall be paid unless these; fees have been or will be paid during the process of recordation of the subdivision map. 8. The model home sales complex shall comply with the requirements of Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance, which' requires a Minor Use Permit approval prior to establishing any of the model units or temporary ,sales facilities. LANDSCAPING 9. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional and submitted to the Community Development Department ALRC and Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the model units authorized by this approval. Said plans shall be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the MunicipalCode. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. Front yard landscaping for each dwelling shall consist of two trees (i.e., a P:\Reports - PC\2005\01-25-05\Ehline\pcccasdp820.doc 04 Planning Commission, Resolution No. 2005-006 Site Development Permit 2004-820 Ehline Company Conditions of Approval - Adopted January 25, 2005 Page 3 minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet.tall. Double lodge poles (two-inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered a no -turf, desert landscape option in front yards. 10. The developer shall submit complete landscaping plans for all retention basins, other interior common areas and perimeter landscaped lot and parkway along Avenue 58, to the Community Development Department for review, prior to issuance of any precise grading permits. 11. Wildflower seed mixes susceptible to weed control problems shall not be used in any hydro -seed operations. An alternative seed mix which will achieve erosion and dust control, with minimal weed growth, shall be approved by the Community Development Department. BUILDING DESIGN 12. The applicant shall submit perimeter block wall plans and details, to include exterior color and finish. The block wall plan shall be approved by the ALRC and Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits for wall construction. 13. Final location of all structures submitted for plan check shall comply with all setback standards of the RL zoning district. Developer shall submit a .preliminary unit siting plan to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any dwelling unit permits. Minor amendments to the development plans (e.g., architectural details, house plotting, etc.) shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 14. Plans 3 and 4 may not be sited on any lot within 150 feet of the Avenue 58 ultimate right-of-way line. 15. Front yard setbacks along streets where five or more homes have frontage, shall be staggered at a range between 20 — 25 feet. The applicant shall provide a siting plan with the plan check building plans for verification of all setback issues. P:\Reports- PC\2005\01-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp820.doc 05 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-006 Site Development Permit 2004-820 Ehline Company Conditions of Approval - Adopted January 25, 2005 Page 4 16. All structural spaces indicating a guest house/casita as an option combined with a side -entry garage shall meet the zoning setback standard for the respective option chosen, which shall be clearly identified on all precise grading plans. 17. All interior garage spaces shall maintain the minimum interior dimensions as specified in Chapter 9.150 (Parking), LQMC. Single -car garage spaces shall maintain a minimum 10-foot x 20-foot interior clear dimension, otherwise they will not be counted as an enclosed garage car.space. The indication of a third car space in Plan 3 shall be deleted from any future plan submittals. 18. Guest houses, as defined in LQMC Section 9.60.100, are limited to one per lot/primary dwelling. Any guest house/casita will require approval of a Minor Use Permit, subject to the provisions of said Section as determined by the Community Development Department. The Plan 2 one -car garage/optional casita as shown shall eliminate the casita option, or make it part of the adjacent guest unit. 19. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened within or otherwise integral to the roof structure, using compatible architectural materials and treatments, so as to not be visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits. P:\Reports- PC\2005\07-25-05\Ehline\pccoasdp82O.doc. 06 BI #C La\'' 11►► '� � s �cE`y OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: APRIL 6, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-822 APPLICANT/ ARCHITECT: KKE ARCHITECTS (MARK GILES) DEVELOPER: THE DUNES BUSINESS PARK, LLC REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A RETAIL CENTER LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, BETWEEN JEFFERSON STREET AND DUNE PALMS ROAD Background: The project site is approximately 6.38 acres and is located west of the future center that will house Smart and Final and other retail users. The first phase of the project will have 44,300 square feet of floor space with Phase 2 having 17,350 square feet. The preliminary architectural and landscaping plans have been, submitted for Phase 1 of the Site Plan Permit approval (Attachment 1). The architectural style is "Desert Contemporary" with materials including a float finish exterior plaster, slate and ledgestone veneer, turquoise colored metal awnings, and red blend concrete S-tile roofing. Exterior colors will consist of darker earth tones, including garnet and two shades of green. The material sample board will be available at the meeting. Conceptual landscaping plans have been submitted for the project. The plans are conceptual and show specific trees, but not shrub and groundcover details. A plant palette for trees, shrubs and groundcover is included. Issues: Residences exist to; the north across the wash behind the project. Therefore, architectural, wall and landscaping treatment of the project facing north requires consideration. . P:\Reports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-822 alrc rpt.doc The landscaping plans are at a conceptual level that does not provide adequate detail to assess the plans. Therefore, preliminary -level plans need to be submitted to the ALRC for review. Additionally, the perimeter along Highway 111 will need to comply with the adopted Highway 111 Design Guidelines (Attachment 2). The proposed Retail 1 building, next to Highway 111, shows a drive -through lane between it and Highway 1 1 1. Additional treatment (short walls, berming, planting, etc.) will need to be provided to ensure the lane is screened from view. The Crape Myrtle tree is specified for use. In the desert it is very slow growing and deciduous and should be replaced. Recommendation: That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-822, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1 . Final or revised preliminary landscape plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval by the ALRC prior to issuance of first building permit. 2. Provide substitute tree for the Crape Myrtle. 3. Planting along Highway 111 perimeter shall comply with adopted Highway 111 Design Guidelines while providing screening of drive -through lane of Retail 1 building. 4. Parking lot tree wells shall be a minimum 6'x6' in size. 5. A six to eight foot masonry wall shall be considered along the north property line. 6. The drive-thru adjacent to the westerly driveway, be evaluated for additional landscape setback, screen walls and landscape screening. 7. The building setback/landscape buffer adjacent to retail buildings "A" and "D" be evaluated. Transmitted by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Attachments: 1 . Architectural and Landscaping plans 2. Highway 111 Design Guidelines excerpts P:\Reports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-822 alrc rpt.doc ArTAnunAI--'wlr d_b NoLLYN�,NoL.-�-x ij ill BI #D Ok � C�Oy f� 2 V S S cF'x OF Q� ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT/ ARCHITECT: DEVELOPER: REQUEST LOCATION: Background: APRIL 6, 2005 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-827 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC. INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS, CLUBHOUSE AND COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR USE IN TRACT 31732 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 60 This 39.7 acre property received approval of Tentative Tract Map on January 21, 2004, and consists of 197 residential lots and a recreation lot (Attachment 1). The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for four residential model plans (Attachment 2). Each plan is designed, with three front elevation treatments. The plans utilize a Mediterranean style of architecture and vary in size from 1,337 to 2,509 square feet in size. The two smallest plans are one-story in height with the other two plans two - stories high. The two-story plans are just over 21 feet in height. The architectural plans for a 3,409 square foot clubhouse on the recreation lot have been submitted. The style is Mediterranean and uses plaster walls, stone veneer with a concrete S-tile roof. Exterior colors are earth tones with the roof concrete "S" and flat tiles. Stone veneer is used on portions of the lower facades for Elevation "A"' for each p►an. Material and color samples have been submitted and will be available at the meeting. P:\Reports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-827 innova 31732.doc Conceptual landscaping plans have been submitted for the tract and include the private park within the tract and for the perimeters adjacent to Monroe Street and Avenue 60 (Attachment 3). Preliminary level plans are provided for the street entry on Monroe Street. Perimeter and privacy walls and the entry gate design. are also provided. The site landscaping plan includes the main tree locations in front of residential lots, but no shrub and groundcover information. Issues: Two car garages are required to be 20' x 20' interior clear. It appears some of the garages are slightly undersized but can be adjusted to comply. Plans 2055 and 2223 have a partial second story. Some of the windows facing the sides and rear need articulation, similar to the front -facing windows due to their visibility to surrounding properties. This can be achieved by providing pop -out treatment to match the front windows. One of the trees specified for use in the project is the California Pepper. In the desert these trees are very brittle and will break, and eventually need to be removed. The Brazilian Pepper is an alternative that can be used. Minimum 18 foot high Date Palm trees are specified, but their specific location is not indicated. Palm trees appear to be used at the street entries and in the recreation areas. Mexican Fan palms are also specified to be used. Clarification needs to be provided as to,where the Date Palms are to be used to ensure they are not in high foot traffic areas due to their crown dropping potential. _.., . _ The landscaping plans are at a conceptual level that does not provide adequate detail to assess the plans. Therefore, preliminary -level plans need to be submitted to the ALRC for review. Recommendation: That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-827, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Typical preliminary front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of first production home permit. 2.. For Plans 2055 and 2223 the windows facing the sides and rear shall be provided with treatment, similar to the front -facing windows due to their visibility to surrounding properties. 02. PAReports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-827 innova 31732.doc 3. Preliminary -level common area (perimeters, retention basins, recreation areas, etc) plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for, approval by the ALRC prior to issuance of first production home permit. 4. No date palm trees shall be used in the recreation lot. Transmitted by: Stan SaVa, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Tract map layout 2. Architectural plans 3. Landscaping plans 03 P:\Reports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-827 innova 31732.doc ATTACHMENT 1 h ul l lilil� �IIII a i i j It Fill", g m 'tI 04�,�a�w �o s «�we� 5 OF mow ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: APRIL 6, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-828 APPLICANT/ ARCHITECT: COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC. DEVELOPER: INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS, CLUBHOUSE AND COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR USE IN TRACT 31733 LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 61 Background: This 34.6 acre property received Tentative Tract approval on January 21, 2004, and consists of 125 residential lots and a recreation lot (Attachment 1). The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for three residential model plans (Attachment 2). Each plan is designed with three front elevation treatments. The plans utilize a Mediterranean style of architecture and vary in size from 2,086 to 2,654 square feet in size. The smallest plan is one-story in height with the other two plans two -stories high. The two- story plans are just over 22 feet in height. The architectural plans for a 3,400 square foot clubhouse on the recreation lot have been submitted. The style is similar to the "Elevation A" residential plan and uses plaster walls, stone veneer with a flat concrete tile roof. Exterior colors are earth tones with roof tile concrete "S" and flat tile. Stone veneer is used on portions of the lower facades for Elevation "A"' for each plan. Material and color samples have been submitted and will be available at the meeting. PAReports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-828 innova 31733.doc Conceptual landscaping plans have been submitted for the tract and include the private park within the tract and the perimeters adjacent to Monroe Street and Avenue 61 (Attachment 3). Preliminary level plans are provided for the street entry on Monroe Street. Perimeter and privacy walls and the entry gate design are also provided. The site landscaping plan includes the main tree locations in front of residential lots, but no shrub and groundcover information. Issues: Two car garages are required to be 20' x 20' interior clear. It appears the garages are slightly undersized, but can be adjusted to comply. Plan 2574-S has a partial second -story. The windows facing the sides and rear need articulation, similar to the front -facing windows due to their visibility to surrounding properties. This can, be achieved by providing pop -out treatment to match the front windows. One of the trees specified for use in the project is the California Pepper. In the desert these trees are very brittle and will break, and eventually need to be removed. The Brazilian Pepper is an alternative that can be used. Minimum 18 foot high Date Palm trees are specified but their specific location is not indicated. Palm trees appear to be used at the street entries and in the recreation areas. Mexican Fan palms are also specified to be used. Clarification needs to be provided as to where the Date Palms are to be used to ensure they are not in high foot traffic areas due to their crown dropping potential. The landscaping plans are at a conceptual level that does not provide adequate detail to assess the plans.". Therefore, preliminary -level plans need to be submitted to the ALRC for review. Recommendation: That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-828, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Typical preliminary front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval by the ALRC prior to issuance of the first production home permit. 2. For Plan 2574-S the windows facing the sides and rear shall be provided with treatment, similar to the front -facing windows due, to their visibility to surrounding properties. .n2 P:\Reports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-828 innova 31733.doc 3. Preliminary -level common area (perimeters, retention basins, recreation areas, etc) plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval by the ALRC prior to issuance of first production home permit. 4. No date palm trees shall be used in the recreation lot. Transmitted by: Stan av a, Principal Plagofier Attachments: 1 . Tract map layout 2. Architectural plans 3. Landscaping plans a 03 P:\Reports - ALRC\04-06-05\sdp 2005-828 innova 31733.doc ATTACHMENT #1 �f I pill ill e r p a �r 4 1' r. I � r a � 1� � � 9 � >2 of '� i'� � . � i� t I'®• � � ��' P'� i / i'� 44 ' tl� rl I i� i4 i .. j� �1 I I� 14 i i I'� •9 y � 1.3i� ' a ka _ i i4 QF1 I i - i� i lad 4,� i� t law z , ! I� • x , n4 anxanv-"aoxxox .®.. -,50P O5 - d6xe �T f A z � 5 S COF TNEv� DATE: mr-ra ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE CASE NO.: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ARCHITECT/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: APRIL 6, 2005 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-834 DAVID SACCULLA, CHOICE ENTERPRISES GABRIEL LUJAN & ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO FACADES EACH LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MADISON STREET BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map 32201 was approved by the City Council on July 20, 2004 by Resolution 2004-037 for a subdivision of 24 residential lots on 7.41 acres located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. Site Development Permit 2005-834 proposes architectural and landscape plans for three prototypical units with two facades each. ` Proposed architectural design themes achieve Early California and Tuscan which include pitched roofs covered with concrete tile, stucco exterior surfaces. The proposed floor plans are 2,488 square feet and 3,125 square feet of livable space on lots measuring from 8,010 to 12,375 square feet. The units consist of three bedrooms with three car garages with cobble stone driveways. Pitched roofs in varied heights up to 18 feet high, include enhanced tower features over front door entrances. Each plan type has two facade design treatments that include variation in window sizes and shapes, and other distinct but unifying features such as decorative window, garage door, and vents treatment. PAReports - ALRC\04-06-05\SDP 2005-834ARLC rpt.doc Building color schemes are consist primarily of a variety of brown tones with accent colors utilizing plaster, stone veneer, and stained rafter tails. Exterior materials samples and color sample board will be available at the meeting. A front yard production and perimeter landscaping plans have been submitted consisting of more than two street trees per lot accented with a variety of shrubs. Trees used for the project are African Sumacs and Mediterranean Fan Palms. Ground cover consists of decomposed granite in planter area and Bermuda and Rye grass. Plant materials are appropriate for this climate. Perimeter landscaping plans consist of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Trees used include African Sumacs, California Pepper, Date Palm, and Mediterranean Fan Palms. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Architectural and Landscape plans for Site Development Permit 2005-843, subject to the following Condition of Approval: 1. Date palm trees shall not be used in the perimeter landscaping lots. Transmitted by: Fred Baker, Principal Planner PAReports - ALRC\04-06-05\SDP 2005-834ARLC rpt..doc