The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 05 04 ALRC� T r, 5 CF`y OF Ti'9W ►A 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 MAY 4, 2005 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2005-014 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 April 6, 2005. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 Applicant ................ Stamko Development Co. Location ................. Southwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road within the Centre at La Quinta commercial development Request .................. Consideration of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for a multi -tenant retail store consisting of 23,000 square feet. Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE , B. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-827 Applicant ................ Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc./ Innovative Resort Communities Location ................. Southeast corner of Monroe Street & Avenue 60 Request .................. Consideration of architectural plans for four prototypical residential plans, clubhouse and landscaping plans for use in Tract 31732 Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- C. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-828 Applicant ................ Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture, Inc./ Innovative Resort Communities Location ................. Northwest corner of Monroe Street & Avenue 61 Request .................. Consideration of architectural plans for four prototypical residential plans, clubhouse and landscaping plans for use in Tract 31733 Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- D. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-831` " Applicant ................ Thomas Enterprises Location ................. Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Adams Street Request .................. Consideration of development plans for Phase 2 of the Pavillion at La Quinta project consisting of 72,700 square feet. Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- E. Item ... :................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-830 Applicant ................ GSR Andrade Architects Location ................. East side of Washington Street, south side of La Quinta Professional Plaza, Request .................. Consideration of architectural and landscaping _ plans fora 2-story, 37,212 square foot medical office building on a 2.85 acre site. Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- F. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-832 Applicant ................ William Kelly Trust Location ................. Parcel 12 of Parcel Map 29889 — the east side of Washington Street, +300 feet south of Avenue 47 Request .................. Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 4,600 square foot one story office building in the La Quinta Professional Plaza Action .................... Minute Motion 2005- ALRC/AGENDA ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE G. Item ....................... Applicant ................ Location ................. Request .................. Action .................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-027 Calle Estado, LLC Southwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 10,896 gross s.f. two-story retail/office building in the Village at La Quinta Minute Motion 2005- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. 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, May 4, 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 1 1 1, on Friday, April 29, 2005. DATED: April 29, 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 April 6, 2005 10:00 a.m. CALL.TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:09 a.m. by Principal Planner Stan Sawa. B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and David Thorns. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 2, 2005. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as submitted. Committee Member Christopher abstained. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2004-810; a request of La Quinta Golf Estates. for consideration of final architectural and landscaping plans for the' Guardhouse and access improvements for the property located at Coachella Drive between Eisenhower Drive and The La Quinta Golf Estates. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant Peter Murphy president of the La Quinta Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Mr. Greg Helms and Mark Cook, G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Association members, and Moises Troche, the architect, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting especially the wall issue. Mr. Greg Helm explained the issue of the wall was raised by Mr. Ted Llewellyn that his wall should be raised in height one to two feet. Since that time they have met with their engineers and they believe the wall can be raised per Mr. Llewellyn's request and they will comply. Mr. Helm stated all four property owners walls abutting the guard house will be raised equal amounts. Committee Member Bobbitt stated raising the wall may cause an issue with blocking the views. If the HOA and the homeowners can work this out it is the best solution. From an architectural standpoint this is not an issue of the ALRC. The issues of the engineering will need to be worked out between the HOA and the applicant. Discussion followed regarding the wall height and proposed material to be used. 3. Mr. Ted Llewellyn, 49-127 El Nido, stated he had spoken at the Commission meeting and the Chairman stated at that meeting it should be seven feet and he would like to know the exact height of the wall and from where will the wall be measured. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked if one or two feet is better. Mr. Llewellyn stated the higher the better. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated aesthetically the height is not an issue of the ALRC, but it needs to be worked out with the homeowners. The Committee agrees with one to two feet. If the engineer states it cannot go higher it will need to be worked out structurally. 6. Committee Member Thorns asked the current height. Mr. Llewellyn stated his wall is about five feet. 7. Mr. Helm stated the height moves to follow the contour of the street. They will raise it the same amount to maintain the proportionate height to the street. The Planning Commission gave instruction for it to be one to two feet. 8. Committee Member Thoms asked if the wall will be replastered. The applicant stated yes. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRCAOC 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 9. Committee Member Christopher asked about the painted finish on the main gate. Mr. Moses Troche, project designer, stated it would be a patina finish. Committee Member Christopher asked about a sample color pallet. Mr. Troche stated he would provide staff with the color samples. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt reviewed the prior discussion on the gate approvals. He noted the added detail to the design. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the bougainvillea can be a maintenance issue. The pots need to have drainage provided. Other than that, he has no problem with the plant pallet. 12. Committee Member Christopher asked about the material on the trellis, if it would be pressure treated material to help with the long term maintenance. Mr. Troche stated it is glue -lam or pressure treated. 13. Committee Member Thorns asked about the lighting. Mr. Larry Rogelway explained it is mostly uplighting on the trees and the lanes are lit for security purposes. Committee Member Thorns asked if the foliage will be lit. Mr. Troche explained the lighting on the plants. 14. Committee Member Christopher commended the applicant and HOA for putting together a high quality set of plans. 15. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how the wall height issue would be worked out. Mr. Murphy stated Mrs. Mouriquand's wall would be the biggest issue. 16. Mr.. Mike Wales, 48-955 Avenida El Nido, stated the reason for the higher height is for noise and privacy. They are not concerned with the view. The second issue is that the bougainvillea will not be up and over the trellis. If the wall needs to be replaced the homeowners and applicant should share in the cost and the homeowner should assume the liability after completion. They are looking to the City to ensure the Planning Commission conditions are met. 17. Committee Member would go back to the Bobbitt asked if their recommendation Planning Commission. Staff stated no. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Staff will see that the conditions are met. Committee Member Bobbitt noted the one foot in height for the wall may not be an issue, but the second foot may be a structural problem. It was noted by the applicant that the wall was owned by the HOA and in some instances the wall is on the property owner's land. Staff noted this would have to be worked out between the applicant and HOA. 18. Committee Member Christopher asked if the HOA had been informed of the wall height and whether or not their decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff stated the appeal period is over and the homeowners were at the meeting to see that their concerns are heard. He reiterated that it was a concurrence of the Committee that the design is good and the applicant will work out.the issues with the HOA. 19. Mr. Ted Llewellyn asked where the height of his wall would be measured from. Staff stated it was not clarified at the time of approval. The Planning Commission talked about it being seven feet and the motion stated one to two feet. 20. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the wall does not reach two feet can the plant material reach a height to help. 21. Mr. Helm stated it has been his experience that plant material does not attenuate sound. 22. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-008 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-810, as recommended by staff and as amended: a. When the cap is removed and a determination is made that the wall will support the two .feet, the wall shall be increased to two feet. B. Site Development Permit 2004-820; a request of Ehline Company/Hermann & Associates for 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, for the property located on the south side of Avenue 58, 1 /2 mile west of Madison Street. GAWPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Natasha King representing Ehline Company, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Chilean Mesquite and Bottlebrush are recommended to be deleted from the plant list, or is it a condition. He noted they are a high maintenance tree and do not work well. The issue of the grass at the curb line is a problem. CVWD currently has a requirement to keep the sprinkler heads 18 inches from the curbline. Typically you install a border and decomposed granit and •even then you have problems. He would prefer the grass run to the curbline, but keep the sprinklers in the 18 inches which will give overspray and runoff that will keep the turf looking good. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated it could be planted as a planter bed. Staff noted if it is a rolled curb, people tend to drive up on it. He would like to see the number of Chilean Mesquite and Pepper trees reduced. Ms. Natasha King stated she agrees with their deletion and asked for a recommendation on what could be used. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the City does not have a recommended list and the problem with a recommended list is that there are so many alternative plants available that it would be better for the applicant to make the selection. The Committee does not want to limit anyone on what they can use. It is just better to not have a boiler plate plant list that is used over and over again. He would recommend a variety be used and not just one or two. An Acacia species was given as an example. 5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-009 recommending approval of Site ,Development Permit 2004-820, as recommended by staff and as amended: GAWPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc ,.; 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 a: The quantity of California Pepper tree be reduced on the entrance and common area and replaced with one or more different varieties. C. Site Development Permit 2004-822; a request of KKE Architects/The Dunes Business Park, LLC for consideration. of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail center located on the north side of Highway 111, between Jefferson Street and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicant, Mark Giles, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Christopher stated the parking lot shows the parking spaces to be double -striped and he wants to ensure they will be. The applicant stated they will be. Committee Member Christopher stated he has a concern on the north elevation in regard to the view of the property owners looking at the rear elevation with distracting lighting. If they are to be shielded and down lit, the wall should be a minimum of eight feet. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there was any provision for landscaping adjacent to the Wash. Mr. Giles stated they were proposing a fence with landscaping on the interior. They would prefer to do the eight foot wrought iron fence with landscaping. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked what was proposed by Smart and Final for their fence. Staff stated the same wrought iron fencing with planting. 5. Committee Member Christopher stated it would not be as big an issue as Wal-Mart where they needed to address all the deliveries and aesthetics instead of just the noise. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would prefer the plant material rather than the block wall. He asked if the tree wells were four feet in size. Mr. Giles stated they are all six foot diamonds. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought they were suppose to be eight foot minimum. Staff stated the Code had not been amended to require the larger tree wells. Mr. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 6 a Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Giles stated that to going to that size it would be better to go to the finger island. 7. Committee Member Thoms asked about the small building on the south elevation; it appears too bland. His concern is that it faces Highway 111. 8. Committee Member Christopher agreed.' Discussion followed regarding the uses of the building. 9. Committee Member Thoms stated the south elevation will have to be upgraded. He also noted the berm and plant material is not noted on the plans. Staff noted they will have to work within the height limits of this location. 10. Committee Member Christopher suggested canopies be added over the three window resets and some serious landscaping with more color. Mr. Giles stated they are working out the issue of a deceleration lane in to the site. This will determine how much landscaping they can do. 1.1. Committee Member Thoms asked about staff's recommendation on Item #7. Staff stated there is no project proposed for the west side of this project and on the east side the landscaping belongs to the other project. Staff is concerned about landscaping pockets along the end buildings. Committee Member Thoms stated landscape trellises"may work. Mr. Giles stated they could reduce the size of the drive aisle to gain the space to do something with landscaping. 12. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-010 confirming their recommendation for approval of Site Development Permit 2004-822, as recommended by staff and amended: a. The south elevation of building one shall be upgraded. b. The end buildings shall have additional landscaping. C. The crepe myrtle trees shall be substituted with a different tree variety. d. Eight foot high wrought iron rear wall with landscaping and shielded light shall be constructed. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRCAOC 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 2004-827; a request of Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture 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. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced the applicants Michael Bash, Inno Brafad, and Sandra Esco. 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if this was to be affordable housing. Ms. Sandra stated the perimeters were to stay between 40-70 feet. They have added some detail and undulation to keep it economical and yet have variety. The price range would be $400,000 to $800,000. The largest would be 2,600 square feet. 3. Committee Member Thorns stated the density is very high. Staff stated it is medium density. Mr. Bash stated the density has been reduced from the original design. Committee Member Thorns asked if it has been approved. Staff stated yes, by the Planning Commission and City Council. Committee Member Thorns stated there is a lot of busy detail on the elevations. -The applicant stated there is an optional casita. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what material would be used on the wall. The applicant stated it is a masonry block wall with a cap. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why there was no entry off Avenue 60. The applicant stated they were restricted to not having an entry off Avenue 60. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the gates would be automatic. The applicant stated yes, with electronic gates on Monroe Street. 5. Committee Member Christopher asked if the turning radius was a City standard. Staff stated yes, and it is approved by the Public Works Department. 6. Committee Member Thoms stated he would struggle to approve the architecture. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 8 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 7. Committee Member Christopher stated that if the price range was $350,000 to $500,000, he could possibly,see it, but up into the $8O0,000 price range the basic architecture is certainly not up to what has been approved by this Committee. There needs to be more attention to the architecture. The applicant stated that with the casitas it would go up to $8O0,000. Without the casitas it should only be $400,000 to $60O,000. 8. Committee Member Thorns stated the color of the materials is dull. The applicant asked what colors would be better. She showed a color sample board of Tract 31733. Committee Member Thorns suggested the applicant take another look to enhance or reduce the clutter for the price range. The applicant asked if they wanted more detail or if they could explain what is wanted. Committee Member Thorns stated there are too many gable ends. One of the units has three different window shapes. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees. He does not like the design. They look busy and he does not like the color or the roof lines. 10. Committee Member Christopher stated that if you look at the classic Spanish Revival or Tuscan architecture it would help their design. They need to review some of these elements as they are missing in these plans. The Committee's statement is that this does not aesthetically meet the City's design criteria. Community Development Director Doug Evans stated they have expressed their concerns and this architect can enhance their product based on their comments. We do not want to redesign the project, but the Committee can state it does not meet the criteria of the City for a community. 11. Committee Member Christopher stated that if their theme is to be Spanish or Tuscan then they need to review the elements of those designs. The front gate elements are plain and simple with vertical lines. They need something with more detail with aesthetic value. Staff noted the landscape plan was conceptual. One entrance in and out is also a concern. Staff noted the subdivision design has been approved. 12. Committee Member Thorns noted the plans are conceptual and the California Pepper should be limited as well as the mesquites. G:\wPD0CS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2005-011 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2004-827, with a note to the Planning Commission that they review the architecture plans to be more in line with classic architecture if they are trying to achieve the Tuscan or Spanish Revival look. More color and deviation in the colors is also needed. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2004-828; a request of Colbourn -Currier -Noll Architecture 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 111 and Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted the architecture is similar and the Committee may want to apply the same comments to this tract. 2. Committee Member Thorns noted the site plan is better. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the price range would be the same. The applicant stated approximately the same. 4. .There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-012 recommending denial of Site Development Permit 2004-828. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2004-834; a request of Choice Enterprises for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units with two facades each located at the southwest corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. 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. Staff introduced the applicant David Sacculla, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the applicant was intending to include the landscaping with the house. Will there be a G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc 10 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee April 6, 2005 variety of landscaping product offered? Mr. Sacculla stated they would be offering a conceptual design and will allow the applicant an option on the plants. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern was whether or not there would be a theme. Mr. Sacculla stated they would control the theme, but accommodate suggestive sales. 3. Committee Member Christopher stated there should be continuity of streetscape as a condition. 4. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2005-013 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2004-834, as recommended by staff and amended: a.. Continuity of streetscape 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 May 4, 2005. This meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. on April 6, 2005. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary G.\WP000S\ALRC\4-6-05 ALRC.doc j 1 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 4, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-835 APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECT: . PERKOWITZ + RUTH ARCHITECTS REQUEST: ARCHITECTURAL AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A MULTI -TENANT RETAIL STORE OF 23,000 SQUARE FEET LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND DUNE PALMS ROAD WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed is a multi- tenant one story retail building located at the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road, which is Parcel 1 of Tentative Parcel Map 33588. The proposed "L" shaped building is 23,000 square feet on 2.64 acres. The proposed architectural. design is the same architectural style as the multi -tenant retail shops to the west of this property. The proposed building is a flat roof with slight variations in the parapet roof heights. The proposed building utilizes anodized aluminum store fronts with a stone veneer, blue metal accents beams, and "Sky Blue" fabric awnings. The plaster colors include light tans and off-whites. The proposed landscaping plan includes a variety plant pallet consistent with the landscaping for the commercial center and the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. P:\Reports - ALRC\05-04-05\ALRC RPT SDP 05-835.doc DISCUSSION ITEMS: • Create a stronger image for the building (which is located at the corner of a key intersection with high visibility) allowing some architectural variety within the center without substantially changing the project floor plans and building structure. • Provide architectural detailing including deeper window recesses and more substantial canopies/ trellises, and a trim detail along the edge of the parapet. • Rework the metal accent beams. • Utilize deeper ricer colors that may be a blend of Sam's Club and the Goodyear Tire Store. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Architectural and Landscape plans for Site Development Permit 2005-835. Transmitted. by: 'fTfd Baker, AI Principal Planner P:\Reports - ALRC\05-04-05\ALRC RPT SDP 05-835.doc - 3 s CAM OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 4, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-827 APPLICANT/ ARCHITECT: COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC. DEVELOPER: INNOVATIVE RESORT COMMUNITIES REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PLANS, CLUBHOUSE AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR USE IN TRACT 31732 LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 60 Background: Plans for this project were previously reviewed on April 6, 2005 and rejected. It was determined the plans did not meet minimum acceptable standards desirable in the City. The applicants have decided to redesign the plans prior to Planning Commission review. This 39.7 acre property received approval of Tentative Tract Map 31732 on January 21, 2004, and consists of 197 residential lots and a recreation lot (Attachment 1). The applicant has submitted revised prototypical plans for four residential models and clubhouse plans (Attachment 2). Each plan is designed with three front elevation treatments. The plans 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 highest two-story plan is just over 22 feet in height. The prototype floor plans with one or two minor exceptions are the same as previously reviewed. The prototype floor plans submitted contains a casita option. Primary exterior architectural changes include but are not limited to the following: P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-827 rev innova 31732.doc 1. Removal of exterior shutters. 2. Change of some gable end roofs to hip roofs. 3. Addition of trim around windows 4. Change of some window shapes. The exterior colors and materials have been slightly revised. Exterior colors are still earth tones with the roof concrete "S" and flat tiles. Stucco texture is not indicated. 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. The architectural plans for the 3,409 square foot one story high clubhouse on the recreation lot have not been revised. The style is Mediterranean and uses plaster walls, stone veneer with a concrete S-tile roof. Landscaping plans have been submitted for the tract and include the private recreation lot 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 and recreation lot. Perimeter and privacy walls and a revised entry gate design are also provided. Typical planting plans for the production home front yards have been provided since the last review. Turf areas are kept to a minimum with an 18" wide gravel border provided adjacent to the curbs. Issues: The architectural plans have been revised without incorporating major design changes. Acceptability of these plans needs to be determined. The previously rejected plans will be available at the meeting for review if needed. Some of 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 prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendation: That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee review the development plans and if acceptable, adopt a minute motion recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-827,.subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1 . 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. M P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-827 rev innova 31732.doc Transmitted by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Tract map layout 2. Architectural plans 3. Landscaping plans r.� P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-827 rev innova 31732.doc f - ATTACHMENT 1 7•�F i F .„61 I ip� Is ! lit li�R11I IS ° �i � IN Al Iti h! �tl :I i 1� ! F 4 i4 i"@F . 4_ l t. •�� BI #C � Z s CF`N OF 9�u ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 4, 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 LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR USE IN TRACT 31733 LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET AND AVENUE 61 Background: Plans for this project were previously reviewed on April 6, 2005 and rejected. It was determined the plans did not meet minimum acceptable standards desirable in the City. The applicants have decided to redesign the prototypes prior'to Planning Commission review. This 34.6 acre property received approval of Tentative Tract Map 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 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 high. The floor plans with one or two minor exceptions are the same as previously reviewed. The floor plan submitted contains a casita option. Primary exterior architectural changes include but are not limited to the following: 1. Addition of a short wall and gate enclosing the front courtyards. 2. Change of some gable end roofs to hip roofs. 3. Addition of trim around windows 4. Change of right side elevations for the two story plans. P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-828 rev innova 31733 alrc rpt.doc 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. These plans have not been changed from their last review. The exterior colors and materials have been slightly revised., Exterior colors are still earth tones with roof tile concrete "S" and flat tile. Stucco texture is not indicated. Stone veneer is used on portions of the lower facades for each of the Elevation "A" for each plan. Material and color samples have been submitted and will be available at the meeting. 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 61 (Attachment 3)• Preliminary level plans are provided for the street entry on Monroe Street. Perimeter and privacy walls and a new entry gate design are also provided. Typical preliminary front yard production landscaping plans have been provided since the last review. Turf areas are kept to a minimum with an 18" wide gravel border provided adjacent to the curbs. Issues: The architectural plans have been revised without incorporating major design changes. Acceptability of these plans needs to be determined. The previously rejected plans will be available at the meeting for review if needed. Some of 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 prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendation: That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee review the development plans and if acceptable, adopt a minute motion recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-828, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. 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. P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-828 rev innova 31733 alrc rpt.doc Transmitted by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Tract map layout 2. Architectural plans 3. Landscaping plans ': J P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2005-828 rev innova 31733 alrc rpt.doc .. ATTACHMENT #1 It t t t t grit I a 1: Ij di a 11 _ t i 1 L t f y dill{ii `'I—• � 1 „4 tip I ! IN i I , 14 i• iy I�i:l i4 :I j ! 4-;;A 1 L-7�, F ' iiii i 0 W � S, w I 04 �� 1 ;14 I' �i 111Ni A�� n4 �SlmlP 05 092A BI #D 0 �C OF'C4¢'9w DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 4, 2005 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-831 THOMAS ENTERPRISES (MEL KUHMEL) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PHASE 2 OF THE PAVILLION AT LA QUINTA PROJECT CONSISTING OF 72,770 SQUARE FEET NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND ADAMS STREET The project site is within Specific Plan 2003-066 that was approved in October 2003. The first phase of construction consisting of the west half of the main buildings, the two pads along Adams Street and Pad 3 on Highway 111 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2004 (Attachment 1). Construction: has not yet begun on the project. PROJECT PROPOSAL:. The architectural plans for the east half of the main building has been submitted (Attachment 2). The architecture of the buildings is somewhat Tuscan in nature and uses plaster, stone and a tile roof. The overall appearance is similar to the Phase I construction approved. The material and colors are the same as previously used 'in Phase I and include earth colors. The exception is on the two Best Buy towers. They show a blue square background in the center of the tower for their sign that is being reviewed separately. The project consists of four tenant spaces, each with a "tower" entry. The easterly tenant at the end will also have two roll -up doors facing east for auto stereo installations. ISSUES - With regard to the architecture of the proposed project, Staff. has the following comments: P:\STAN\sp 03-066 thomas\sdp 2005-831 alrc rpt.doc 1. The project entries are south -facing and as such, provisions for shade for pedestrians need to be provided. In those areas where no covered arcade is provided, a trellis is needed. In Phase I trellis were provided where arcades did not exist. Additionally, the Best Buy tower facing south needs to be lengthened to the south to provide shade over the entry area. 2. The Tower structures at the top rear where they meet the roof should be lengthened towards the rear of the building to ensure they are not visible and provide adequate bulk to the tower. 3. The Office Max Tower is too large and appears out of scale with the balance of the buildings. 4. The rear of the buildings show exposed gutter downspouts on the walls. The Phase I construction was not approved with exposed downspouts. Staff recommends if allowed they be framed on each side with material similar in finish to the wall material. The color should be contrasting to provide articulation to the wall. 5. The blue Best Buy background should be limited to a band around the "ticket" sign and be made out of metal or similar material. Landscaping plans have not been submitted. The Phase I approval included the entire parking lot including the area in front of this portion of the center. Several parking lot landscape fingers are shown, but no planting adjacent to the buildings are shown. Planters are needed to break up the expanse of sidewalk. Additionally, planting on the east side near Best Buy is needed. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-831, subject to the following conditions: Provide trellis structures in uncovered areas between proposed tenants. 2. Lengthen all tower structures at the top rear where they meet the roof towards the rear of the building to ensure they are not visible and provide adequate bulk to the towers. 3. Provide "box framing of all exposed gutter downspouts at rear of building. 4. The blue Best Buy background should be limited to a band around the "ticket" sign and be made out of metal or similar material. 5. Landscape planters shall be provided in front of the buildings in non -pedestrian areas. P:\STAN\sp 03-066 thomas\sdp 2005-831 alrc rpt.doc U w Attachments: 1. Approved Phase I plans 2. Plan exhibits Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\STAN\sp 03-066 thomas\sdp 2005-831 alrc rpt.doc ,y ww1W araaa■ n aaaaaa'im N� 5 l m C A N k 1 4 e I ' Fy IT i ti 1 j 5 4 r� 43 I i o u� D m z j I BI #E i ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 4, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-830 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA MOB, LP ARCHITECT: GSR ANDRADE ARCHITECTS REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 2- STORY, 37,212 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ON A 2.85 ACRE SITE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH SIDE OF LA QUINTA PROFESSIONAL PLAZA (SEE VICINITY MAP) Please review the attached information for the May 4, 2005 ALRC meeting. The project consists of a two-story, 37,212 square foot medical office building, averaging approximately 36 feet in height. The main roof ridge height is at 34 feet, 8 inches and 36 feet 6 inches, at the west and east elevations, respectively. The tower element at the south elevation rises to 43 feet 11 inches. While this exceeds the allowable zoning district height limit of 40 feet, the code does allow for architectural features like this to exceed the height limit by up to 15 feet, if approved as part of a Site Development Permit action. Architectural features consist of medium textured stucco exterior, smooth masonry stone trim areas and window eyebrows, clay roof tiles, and anodized aluminum storefront trim. There are balconies shown on the north and west elevations, which will incorporate wrought iron railings. Landscaping includes a variety of drought tolerant plants and materials common in other developments in La Quinta. There are two date palms shown at the south building entry; none are shown elsewhere in the plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architecture & Landscaping Review Committee incorporate the following items as part of their recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1. Building exterior should employ a smooth trowled plaster finish 2. Roof tile shall be a mission clay "S" tile, possibly using a mudded treatment 3. Metal porte-cochere, wrought iron and other metal railings shall be painted in a contrasting color, consistent with the building color scheme. 4. Provide more architectural detailing around the building 5. Provision of more extensive solar treatment to window areas, particularly with respect to recessing of the main entry at the south elevation 6. Eliminate the Date Palm trees and replace them with an appropriate shade tree Transmitted by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner AiOtrio.t r � �4y eb �' Q Iy� tw.r] I gwaae Za 8 qF fi e � v g a O °r. VI :S� r '� a�� N s- �, g - i O a a,tar�t. - te• a. o`CR t� ry d N q C2tl - 2 -t 136.11 9 rCO U cp( N oz F ae aOy', h V kq MIAI ,1aA4 4 g 4 O aew3 e 3 ae I� O M1 P� YJ ASSESSOR'S YAP BK643 P0,20 Riverside Counly, Calif. EG ' J �T BI #F Ok s of S cE`y OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 4, 2005 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-832 - APPLICANT: WILLIAM KELLY TRUST ARCHITECT: ALFRED H. COOK; AIA REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 4,600 S.F. ONE STORY OFFICE BUILDING IN THE LA QUINTA PROFESSIONAL PLAZA (PALM DESERT NATIONAL BANK SITE) LOCATION: PARCEL 12 OF PM 29889 - EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, ± 300 FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 47 (SEE ATTACHED VICINITY MAP) Background: Please review the attached information for the May 4, 2005 ALRC meeting. This proposed building incorporates the general architectural characteristics set forth in the approved La Quinta Professional Plaza Specific Plan for this property. There are minor variations in window treatments, accents and building elevation massing, but they appear to complement the overall architectural theme of the Specific Plan. The architecture also carries over elements of the Palm Desert National Bank and Louise's Pantry buildings (stone veneer), which are within this commercial plaza. The design does introduce a new color to the development, a "Spring Leaves" green, similar to that at City Hall. It will be used on the window mullions of the building. Building height is single -story, at 20 feet, 6 inches to the roof peak. Staff's only comment is that the east elevation may not provide adequate recessing of windows to address solar exposure, to the extent reflected in the west elevation design. It may be appropriate for the ALRC to look at this issue relative to the architectural provisions of the building. In regard to landscaping, as with the other buildings reviewed previously for this complex, the landscape improvements relate primarily to the peripheral areas of the building. The entire parking area and on -site circulation was installed as part of Phase 1 improvements, so landscaping associated with this building is limited to infill of existing planters and surrounds of the building itself. P:\REPORTS - ALRC\05-04-05\ALRCSDP832.DOC Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of a minute motion recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-832, as proposed. Transmitted by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Attachments: 1 . Vicinity map 2. Proposed development plans P:\REPORTS - ALRC\05-04-05\ALRCSDP832.D0C ATTACHMENT #1 o ASSESSOR'S YAP BK643 P0.20 Riverside County, Calif. Aaj R a c BI #G .,• , I ;W` ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 4, 2005 CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2005-027 APPLICANT: CALLE ESTADO, LLC ARCHITECT: SOUTH WEST CONCEPTS REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 10,896 GROSS S.F. TWO-STORY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING IN THE VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE ESTADO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE (SEE ATTACHED VICINITY MAP) Please review the attached information for the May 4, 2005 ALRC meeting. BACKGROUND This proposed building is on a 0.34 acre site, which is made up of three 50 x 100 foot lots in the Village The proposed building is a 10,896 s.f. structure intended for general office uses. The first floor will contain about 3,909 s.f. of gross floor area as retail, with 5,700 s.f. of gross floor area as general office on the second floor. The building is generally sited on the north portion of the site, with the front of the building facing Calle Estado (north, or front elevation). The parking area occupies the remainder of the site. The building is flanked on its east and west sides by exterior stairwells. The main roof ridge line height is at 30 feet from finish grade, with architectural treatments that extend up to 32 feet at the highest point of the roof dormers. The height limit for the Village is set at 35 feet. The architecture is best described as a blending of Traditional Spanish and Mediterranean design elements. The building walls will be stucco, with an off-white finish. The roofing material will be a two-piece mission clay tile in a darker tri-color earth tone (El Camino) color blend. The window surrounds, doors and mullions will be framed in a finished aluminum. The roof eaves will be accented with exposed rafter tails, stained in a dark wood color. In general, the building has a significant amount of architectural detail. P:\REPORTS - ALRC\05-04-05\ALRCVUP027.DOC In regard to the landscaping plan, other than three street trees, the landscaping is predominantly shrubs and groundcover. There are no turf areas provided, as the area available for landscaping is very minimal. There are additional tree symbols shown along the alley (south PL), but they are not identified. Additional tree quantities could be placed along this area, if the planter strip could be increased in width. It should be noted that this project will require reduced parking consideration, as it cannot provide the required number of spaces. At present, this is the design that the applicant proposes and staff will now be addressing reduced parking designs through the variance process before the Planning Commission. While this issue does not affect the building and landscape design as currently configured, staff wants to make the ALRC aware that the application remains incomplete, pending submittal of a variance application to allow it to move ahead as proposed. A material and color board, along with full-size color illustrations, will be provided at the meeting. Please review the attached information for the meeting RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of a minute motion recommending to the Planning Commission approval of the plans for Village Use Permit 2005-027, with the provision that the landscape plan provide additional shade trees along the south property line. Transmitted by: GAS, `yl.� Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner P:\REPORTS - ALRC\05-04-05\ALRCVUP027.DOC I I o ` C I e vovas , 3 / B O 1 p ra B .p 9 d Q B NO sit !. rw o a a p •B �,p g p.B 1.8 oTI K� a0 a 8T 'O vlrR p_ B Kpv1 �OwB '...• I I-1s[1W11 rvM�.��.� ! arm �y�jvs v vu ry ;0 Mrs m 1 I .N.w i _•••V ° A wn7 O_� ° j--- 1 ---- a Ox + = Y O r d I ! r Oo wxe Y11 ray I yr I I • 1 , 1 p• m _J _ .r I 1 Q.• I I � 1 =Val �� O• B I � w A I a 4r I bpi _ Description: Riverside, CA Assessor Map 770.15 Page: 1 of 21 Oder: sta rose radius Comment: 1,�