2005 08 03 ALRCARCHITECTURE 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
AUGUST 3, 2005
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2005-026
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. 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.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 1, 2005.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-804
Applicant ................ James Paul
Location .................. North side of Corporate Center Drive, east and
west of Commerce Court
Request .................. Consideration of landscaping plans for a three
building office complex.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2005-
B. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765,
AMENDMENT #1
Applicant ................ Rick Wilkerson/ Madison/ P.T.M. La Quinta, LLC
Location ................. Northwest corner of Highway 111 and
Washington Street
Request .................. Consideration of a modification to architectural
plans for the Point Happy Plaza parking structure.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2005-
C. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-836
Applicant ................ GLC-DUC La Quinta, LLC
Location ................. North side of Avenue 52, west of Madison Street
Request .................. Consideration of common area landscaping plans
for Tract 32279 and Tract 33336.
Action .................... 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, August 3, 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, July
29, 2005.
DATED: July 29, 2005,/
AWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 6, 2005 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Community Development
Director Doug Evans.
B. Committee Members present: Frank Christopher, Bill Bobbitt, and
David Thorns.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Principal
Planner 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 June 1,
2005. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by'
Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to approve the Minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2005-833; a request of Mulvanny G2
Architecture for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans
for a 150,000 square foot retail store and fueling station for the
property located south of the intersection of .Depot Drive/Highway
111, between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson 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 Peter Clement and
Jeffrey Wilson, Brad Lenahan, the Costco representative, the
architect and landscape architect, who gave a presentation on
the project.
GAWPD0MALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 6, 2005
1. Committee Member Christopher asked about the wall abutting
the low-income housing project next door and the drive for the
loading trucks. Mr. Clement answered they have looked at the
drive for the trucks. -
2. Committee Member Thoms asked if the access path was to
service the handicap. He then asked about the path on the
east. The blowups of the parking area show it as a pedestrian
connection, on the west side of the access path there is a
concrete block the cars to the west. On the east side there is a
low wall and hedge planting and then the parked cars. What
happens when pedestrians want to get to the path, do they
walk through the shrubs. Mr. Wilson stated there is a clear
path to both sides where the parking spaces are provided.
Where there needs to be ADA accessibility, it will be open on
both sides. This is a typical cross section, not actual.
Committee Member Thorns stated his concern is that people will
have to walk through the hedge to get to the path. Mr. Wilson
stated where there are no ADA accessible paths, people will
normally use the vehicle travel lanes, but they will work with
their landscape architect to ensure there are break areas where
people will want to walk through. Mr. Clements asked if it
would be better to meander the sidewalks to work out with the
ADA spaces. Committee Member Thorns stated there is not
enough room to meander a sidewalk. Mr. Clements stated they
could move the shrubs from one side to the other to create the
breaks on the east side as well. Mr. Wilson went on to describe
the pathway from Highway 111 to service pedestrian access as
well as ADA pathway.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the height limits for this
location. Staff stated 40-feet, but architectural projections can
exceed this. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the use
of the Chinese Elm and Ash trees; are these normal trees for
Costco? Mr. Brad Lenahan, landscape architect for the project,
stated yes, and explained the alternative trees they may use.
Committee Member Bobbitt discouraged the use of the Pistacias
because they will blow over and split. They need to be
maintained or they will not achieve their purpose. Committee
Member Bobbitt commended the applicant on the parking lot
islands at 6-feet. He then asked what type of irrigation would
be used. Mr. Lenahan stated drip for shrubs, deep two inch
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 6, 2005
bubblers on the trees. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the
bubblers can be a problem if not installed'correctly. It is better
to use a grid of emitters, one on each side of the tree. Mr.
Lenahan suggested nettafim that is laid out in a grid.
4. Committee Member Christopher asked about the 1.5 inch
caliper trunk tree size and suggested they be 36-inch box trees.
5. Committee Member Bobbit explained the 1.5 inch was a Code
requirement. Mr. Lenahan stated that when they submit for
plan check the specifications will be listed at that time.
6. Committee Member Christopher stated the trees next to the
building should be larger.
7. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to
adopt Minute Motion 2005-023 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2005-833, as recommended and as
follows:
a. Redesign the planting areas to allow breaks in the plant
hedges for pedestrians in the parking lot.
Accommodations shall be made on the east and west
elevations.
b. Trees in and around the building shall be in scale with the
building.
Unanimously approved.
B. Village Use Permit 2005-029; a request of Prest Vuksic Architects for
consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 30,787
square foot of retail in two one-story buildings, for the property
located at the southwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive.
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 David
Prest, John Vuksic and Bob Lichter, the, architect and landscape
architect, who gave a presentation on the project.
G.\WPDOCS\ALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 6, 2005
2. Committee Member Bobbitt clarified that in regard to the palm
trees, his comments have been that they not be placed in high
traffic areas and the choice of trees be made by a qualified
landscape architect to ensure they did not come out of an old
grove, but were strong, healthy trees and not stressed.
3. Committee Member Christopher 'asked about the integration of
the residential uses in conjunction with the commercial uses.
Staff stated the applicant is not receptive to the idea at this
time. If it were considered, Building "B" would be the only
building for this type of development. Committee Member
Christopher stated this corner would be the ideal location to
have four residential units on the second' story. Staff noted it
would require processing of a Specific Plan.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the storefronts opening
onto the street. With the parking lot on the inside, it does not
lend itself to having entries on the street side. Staff explained
the site plan.
5. Committee Member Thorns stated that as presented, it does not
make sense to create punch -out areas to allow the entrances on
the street side. He asked the location of the corrugated metal.
Staff noted the location of the use. Committee Member Thorns
stated he would have a problem accepting the corrugated metal
in the Village. Mr. Bob Lichter described how the metal would
be integrated into the design of the project. In regard to the use
of the corrugated steel, he would hope they would not consider
the material without taking into account the entire project. In
regard to mixing this use with a residential component, it could
be a real problem. Parking would be the biggest problem. Mr.
Vuksic went into more detail on the project.
6. Committee Member Thorns
stated he thinks it is a wonderful
project
and agrees the residential uses would not work here.
He still
has a
problem with
the use of corrugated metal. Mr.
Lichter
stated
the material
on the City, Library is metal. Mr.
Vuksic
stated
the metal is
all exposed to give the texture of
material
for a
specific look.
It will create shadows withthe
light.
7. Committee Member Christopher stated the use of metal is
pushing the limits on the style in the Village when the majority
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 6, 2005
of the buildings are already some form of Spanish revival.
However, this site could support the contemporary style. It is
his understanding that Council has stated they would like to
have the eclectic look.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern is whether or not
the design would fit in this location. He does like the project
and he would visit the site. The building and landscape are
beautiful building.
9. Committee Member Christopher suggested there are a host of
materials made out of copper that are prefinished with almost
the same color pallet. It changes that element. It accomplishes
the design idea but uses a different material. Mr. Lichter stated
he would agree, but would question whether or not they can
find a material that is cost effective. Mr. Vuksic stated the
metal will not have the industrial look. It will be upscale.
Committee Member Christopher noted this corner is a transition
site where there should be a lot of foot traffic. He suggested
having the second building take access onto the street and
create a seating area. Discussion followed regarding
alternatives for the site. Mr. Prest stated he believes the City
would want the different architecture= to have a variety.
Community Development Director Doug Evans stated the ALRC
has stated their approval of the building and concern about the
location of certain metals. He would state his concern is to
develop new customers and have a larger customer base. This
building could bring the younger clientele to keep it alive 50
years down the road.
10. Committee Member Christopher stated this is a good location as
it is the focused corner and this project would be a good
transition.
1 1 . Committee Member Thorns stated he has no objection except to
the corrugated metal.
12. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to
adopt Minute Motion 2005-024 recommending approval of
Village Use Permit 2005-029, as recommended and as follows:
a. Non glue-lem products be pressure treated.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc 5
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 6, 2005
b. Actual metal sample of the finish piece of corrugated
metal be provided to the Planning Commission.
Unanimously approved.
C. Site Development Permit 2005-814, Amendment #1; a request of the
Entin Family Trust for consideration of a modification to architectural
plans for a 23,760 square foot two-story general office building for
the property located 43-576 Washington Street, approximately 950
feet north of Fred Waring Drive.
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesibt presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Albert
Barcelo, the architect, who gave a presentation on the project.
2. Committee Member Thorns asked how the first floor related to
the curb on Washington Street. Staff ,stated there is a slight
elevation. Mr. Barcelo stated the finish floor is at 151 feet
above sea level and the sidewalk on Washington is 146. It is
not a dominant building sitting on Washington Street. It is
recessed back from the street.
3. Committee Member Christopher asked if the solar concerns
raised by staff were addressed. Mr. Barcelo explained the
changes. Committee Member Christopher stated the banding
on the windows gives a more institutional look. He suggested
an eyebrow arch over the center upper windows. Mr. Barcelo
stated they considered it when they realized the extra space.
They did break it up on the first floor and rear of the building.
By adding the extra arches they thought this may be too much.
They were looking to have a balanced look on the entire
building.
4. Committee Member Thorns asked about the landscape plan. He
noted the changes as being an improvement. Along
Washington Street there needs to be more screening of the
parking lot. It is almost all decomposed granite (DG) with one
and two gallon plants. There needs to be more screening. He
asked what happens along the north and south side. Staff
stated they would need to have a reciprocal access agreement.
The adjoining properties are commercially zoned.
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc 6
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 6, 2005
5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Thoms to
adopt Minute Motion 2005-025 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2005-814, Amendment #1, as
recommended and as follows:
a. Tri-colored tile shall be used on the roof.
b. More plant material shall be added along Washington
Street to provide more screening for the parking lot.
C. Screening of property line walls shall be required.
Unanimously Approved
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
Vill. 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 meeting to be held on August 3, 2005. This
meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :47 p.m. on July 6, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER
Executive Secretary
G:\WPDOCS\ALRC\7-6-05 ALRC.doc I 1
7
BI #A
°
a s
cF`yoeiNti�
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: AUGUST 3, 2005
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2004-804
APPLICANT: JAMES PAUL
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: GM FUTURE DESIGNS
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A THREE BUILDING
OFFICE COMPLEX ON CORPORATE C ENTER DRIVE
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE, EAST AND WEST OF
COMMERCE COURT
Please review the attached information for the August 3, 2005 ALRC meeting.
BACKGROUND
Site Development Permit 2004-804 was reviewed by the ALRC, and subsequently
approved by the Planning Commission in May of 2004. At that time, no landscaping
plans had been submitted. The project was therefore conditionally approved, with a
requirement for ALRC review of the landscaping plans.
The project is now in building plan check, landscaping plans have been submitted, and
are attached for the Committee's review.
As the Committee has indicated in the past, it may wish to consider recommending
that the Mesquite shown on the plant palette be replaced by a different type of tree.
The balance of the palette is consistent with drought tolerant species typically seen
throughout the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the landscaping plan subject to the following conditions:
1. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and stamped by the Coachella Valley
Water District prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. Water consumption calculations, consistent with the City's landscaping
water conservation standards, shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building
permits for the project site.
Transmitted by:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
i
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: AUGUST 3, 2005
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-765, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: RICK WILKERSON/ MADISON/ P.T.M. LXQUINTA, L. L. C.
ARCHITECT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: REVIEW OF A MODIFICTION TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR
POINT HAPPY PLAZA PARKING STRUCTURE
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON
STREET
BACKGROUND:
This proposed parking structure modification is on a 3.24 acre site, which is currently
approved and under construction for a 35,000 square foot two story multi -tenant
building and a two level parking structures. The project was'approved on April 22,
2003.
The proposed revisions do not affect any provisions of the site plan, building area or
the multi -tenant building architecture, landscaping or footprint location as currently
approved. The amendment pertains solely to the design of covered parking on the
second level of the parking structure. Exhibits in the packet show the current approved
elevations and the proposed revisions.
The parking structure, currently under construction, is located on the north edge of the
commercial center. The parking structure will be provide an additional 142 parking
spaces for the commercial center. The approved covered parking includes five wood
framed structures with tile roofs extending, at the highest point, 18 feet above parking
deck surface. During the plan check phase of the construction plans it was determined
that the Building Code does not allow wood framed structures on an open non-
combustible parking structure.
Six covered parking structures, with heights up to 12 '6", are proposed. The new
proposed covered parking offers metal covered parking structures mounted on
concrete bumper barriers with stucco coated columns and foam cornices with concrete
skins, and a stucco finish around the edges of the metal roof cover.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a minute motion recommending to the Planning Commission approval of the
plans for Site Development Permit 2003-765, Amendment #1.
Attachments:
1. Plan exhibits (ALRC only)
Transmitted by:
;;
red Baker, AICR,
Principal Planner
C
ti
l 4
4 44 ti
Ali
� A
F
0 o
--low
ION
gg
IN
a �
A 70
�rn
N
x —1
c
7i�
m
n
O
z
v
r
O
O
X
CD
-I
m
-v
z
0
a
D
�f
-
� �
55 M
Sr
m
G
11
9$litA:
5
e
9
9z
w
Z
G
e+� C
aoap
14
's wn
C)
BI #C
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: AUGUST 3, 2005
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2005-836
APPLICANT: GLC-DUC LA QUINTA, LLC
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING PLANS
FOR TRACT 32279 AND TRACT 33336
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, WEST OF MADISON STREET
Background:
This property consists of two adjacent single family tracts that will share an access to
Avenue 58 (Attachment 1). TT 32279 was approved August 17, 2004 while TT
33336 was approved July 19, 2005. Both tracts are owned by the same developer
and will be developed concurrently. A large lot with an existing residence which is not
a part of the easterly subdivision will remain and be enclosed and landscaped adjacent
to its boundaries as a part of this project. The applicant has submitted landscaping
plans for the street perimeter and common areas (Attachment 2).
The plans include perimeter wall designs and entry gates and a project entry sign. The
plant palette includes water efficient trees and shrubs. The Coachella Valley Water
District has approved and signed the plans.
The plans include landscaping of the retention basins for each tract adjacent to
Avenue 58. The basin bottoms utilize decorative desert sunset sand. Turf is used in
very limited areas as small accents. The plan shows one street tree near the private
street per residential lot.
Existing walls around the property will be painted facing the property where
necessary. New walls adjacent to Avenue 58 will be stuccoed with a stucco cap.
Evenly spaced ledger stone veneer columns with a precast concrete cap will be used.
The perimeter wall for the easterly tract will not be adjacent to Avenue 58 but will the
same wall that encloses the existing residence.
P:\Reports - ALRC\08-03-05\GLC-Duc\sdp 2005-836 alrc rpt landscaping.doc
Issues:
All of the trees are shown at a 24" box size. 50% of the trees adjacent to Avenue
58 should be 36 box size to provide a variety in the street scape appearance. The
sign will need to be processed separately as a Sign Application. The Public Works
Department will need to review the plans with relationship to planting in the retention
basins and right-of=way.
Recommendation:
That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend to the Planning
Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2005-836,: subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
1. Typical preliminary front yard landscaping plans for the residences shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for approval by the ALRC
prior to issuance of first production home permit.
2. A sign permit shall be filed for approval of the entry sign adjacent to Avenue
58.
3. 50% of the trees adjacent to Avenue 58 should be minimum 36" box size to
provide a variety in the streetscape appearance to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department.
Transmitted by:
cc-4 n SGUnrl�
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Landscaping plans
PAReports - ALRC\08-03-05\GLC-Duc\sdp 2005-836 alrc rpt landscaping.doc
VICINITY MAP