2006 08 02 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 2, 2006
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2006-025
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:
Approval of the Minutes of July 5, 2006 and July 12, 2006.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-866
Applicant ................ Trans West Housing, Inc.
Location ................. West side of Monroe Street, south of Avenue 54
Request .................. Consideration of architectural and landscaping
plans for The Griffin Ranch Saddle Club.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2006-
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
B. Item ....................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2006-034
Applicant ................ Lench Design Studio, Inc.
Location ................. Northwest side of Avenida Montezuma across
the street and north of Francis Hack Park, in The
Village
Request .................. Consideration of architectural and conceptual
landscaping plans for eight single family detached
town homes.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2006-
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee will be
adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 6, 2006 at 10:00
a.m.
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 Regular Meeting of Wednesday, August 2, 2006, was posted on the
outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin board at
the La Quinta Post Office bulletin board. 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, July 28,
2006.
DATED: July 28, 2006
BETTY J. YER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPD0CS\ALRC\Agenda.doc
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 5, 2006 10:00 a.m.
loyalo oxolGlolq:1
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Planning Manager Les Johnson.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, and Frank Christopher. It
was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher
to excuse Committee Member Tracy Smith. Unanimously approved
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Doug Evans, Planning
Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Secretary
Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to approve the minutes of
June 7, 2006, as submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006-864; a request of Tahiti Partners Real
Estate Development Corporation for consideration of architectural and
landscaping plans for two prototypical residential plans for use in Tract
24890-1 for the property located on the east side of Mandarina south
of Pomelo in the Citrus project.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there used to be a three -car
garage requirement, but he only saw two -car garages on the
applicant's plans. He asked about a golf cart garage. The
D �rA ani vnn A ar\AI Ar RAI nu iTcc�oi ar zF_na nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
applicant's representative Jennifer Toohey Conrad (Tahiti
Partners) replied there was a cart garage, and noted its location
on the exhibits.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt was concerned about the
bottlebrush tree because they are so messy and high
maintenance. The applicant asked if he had a recommendation.
Committee Member Bobbitt stated the Committee prefers not to
make recommendations on plant materials but inform applicants
of the problems associated with certain plant material. He also
pointed out on Plan 2, Lot 16, the California Pepper Tree is not
be recommended due to breakage. The applicant asked about
citrus trees. Committee Member Bobbitt said citrus was fine,
but not the California Pepper, because of the potential of injury
and death due to the crown -drop. It would be acceptable only if
the tree is not in a high traffic area. The architect should be
purchasing the trees a nursery where they are young and not
from a grove. He said they would not recommend the Chilean
mesquites because they uproot easily in wind storms.
4. Committee Member Christopher agreed with the use of tile and
staff's recommendations, but had a problem with the wrought
iron on the sky deck railing. He suggested the decorative iron
on the sky decks have the same detail as any other wrought
iron; such as the front gates.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked who was going to maintain
the landscape. Ms. Conrad said the Homeowners' Association
would maintain the landscape.
6. Committee Member Christopher asked about the existing lots to
the east. Ms. Conrad explained those are not part of the
project. It is a separate tract being developed by a different
developer.
7. Committee Member Christopher said the plot map shows JM
Peters, and asked if he was involved with this project. The
applicant said no, it had changed hands.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the garage doors would be
wood, or a simulated wood. The applicant said this is yet to be
decided since they were concerned about maintenance of the
wood.
P.\rARnl vnnni ar%ei ar HIM iTPc%Al ar 7_F_na nnr 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
9. Committee Member Christopher suggested they use fiberglass
or other composite material that will look like wood.
10. The applicant asked about the no turf option and explained the
Homeowners' Association wants a lush landscape and does not
allow zero-scape. Committee Member Bobbitt said the water -
efficient option comes from the Water District.
11. Committee Member Christopher suggested the applicant work it
out with the Homeowners' Association.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt states this was a recommendation
of the Committee to the Planning Commission. If the
Homeowners' Association does not want desert landscape, then
the applicant can work it out with them. Ms. Conrad said the
Homeowners' Association does not want desert landscape.
13. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to
adopt Minute Motion 2006-021 recommending approval of Site
Development Permit 2006-864, as amended:
a. The California Pepper be replaced with trees less prone to
wind damage.
b. Composite wood garage doors may be used
C. Use decorative wrought iron railings on the second deck.
Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Discussion of final review of landscaping plans and role of the
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee.
1. Community Development Director Doug Evans discussed the
role of the Committee in regard to what their overall
involvement in the development of a project.
a. The Committee currently approves concept landscape
plans. Staff will now be bringing final landscape plans
back to the Committee. The City Council is concerned
that parkways appear to be underplanted. They would
like to see better shrub massing, as well as additional
hedges, in parkways and against buildings. Staff will be
c \rvan1 vnnoi Rr�Al ar nninn iTGc�ei ar zG_na nnr 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
adding conditions for th
final landscaping plans.
plans are not adequate,
staff accordingly.
Committee to review on the
If the Committee believes the
the Committee should advise
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated when he was re -appointed to
the Committee, one of the issues mentioned by the City Council
was the extent to which the Council would like the Committee
to go to when reviewing a project.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt said he does not approve of the
type of drip systems being submitted by architects on the
current designs. The type of system they generally install is the
tube emitter system and they are too easily broken. A hard
pipe system would be preferred. The Committee needs to be
more specific on the City's guidelines. Staff replied they would
be reviewing the Water Efficiency Ordinance and this could
possibly be built into the Ordinance.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt said flexible tubing is notorious for
breakage and he is concerned with the dispensing of the water.
Staff stated they would review this in the Landscaping
Ordinance. Staff went on to discuss specific roles of the
Committee with regard to land use. The Committee cannot rule
on land use, but can look at compatibility of building design.
The Council is concerned about architectural compatibility,
building height, and setbacks. The Committee can review those
issues as long as the discussion is in reference to design. The
Council wants the whole processing procedure to do this. The
Committee should not get into issues about retail use, but
building, landscape, lighting, and anything related to design
issues to make a project fit. The whole system has to be on
the look out for design compatibility. Clearly look at screening
shrubs, hedges, trees, and perception of future lighting plans
and building design. There is an evolving ethic on energy
efficient design for commercial use, and multi -family use.
Energy efficiency through architectural design could be
something the Committee looks at.
5. The Committee's overall role is if the design does not meet
what they believe are City standards, inform the applicant;
don't re -design it. Tell staff generally what the issues are.
Sometimes if it's not a good project, be direct and don't spend
a �roani vnnoi aMei ar RAIN irac�ei ar zF_na nnr 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
time discuss it. Tell the client they need to go back and re-
design the project. Let staff handle it from there.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt said there needs to be a way to
communicate to the developers what type of plans they need to
submit so they do not have to be rejected or go through
multiple reviews. He asked if staff discussed the project with
the applicant before they are submitted to the Committee.
Staff replied they work with the applicant and when there is a
problem, they inform the applicant. Staff suggested the
Committee Members review the staff reports in light of what
materials or plans they need to make recommendations. If the
application has been received late staff will add conditions of
approval, to let both the applicant and Committee know there is
a problem. Staff is reviewing the reports to spend less time
telling the Committee what the plans show but what staff
believes the Committee really need to look at, such as, here are
the challenges, here are the plans, here are the issues. Staff
spends most of their time writing reports and less time getting
the plans together. Staff is accustomed to spending time on
background, but will be working more on advising the
Committee about the project.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt said he agreed with that type of
report and generally looks at the recommendations first. He
does not need to know about the roof tiles, he can see them.
8. Community Development Director Doug Evans said items are
pulled off the agenda if there are problems with the project.
They are returned to the client for re -design. Most developers
want a very clean recommendation for approval. Staff wants
the Committee Members to be comfortable with their role.
They take great care in making appropriate recommendations,
and staff is going to relay more information about the design
criteria (such as the Village Design Guidelines) with sections
highlighted. Staff will also be putting in a work program to re-
define and re -design the Village Design Guidelines. If it is
approved by the Council, it will give the Committee more
direction.
9. Committee Member Christopher said there are a few small lots
left in the Village. The pressure is to lift the height limit and get
as much as possible on each parcel of land. What happens is
the Village atmosphere is destroyed by concrete and height. It
is one of the issues critical to the Old Town corridor. He gave
P-V'APr f vN\AI Rf iai Pr RAIKII ITPq\AI Pr 7_q-n1 nnr 5
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
an example of the office building in the front of Arnold Palmer's
Restaurant. It met all the criteria, but changed the view. The
proposal was in accordance with the rules. He questioned if the
Committee looks at the criteria could Arnold Palmer's office
have been taken down to one story, since the office building
across the street is two stories. He asked what staff's opinion
was in regard to imposing height restrictions on properties to
maintain vista corridors in the Village to maintain the
atmosphere.
10. Staff replied the Committee certainly has full authority to
address compatibility consistency issues, not only
architecturally, but also issues of height. In the Village it is
almost lot specific. In the main core area, it may be more
acceptable, but at the south end of the Village it has a different
feel to it. Thirty-five or forty feet may not be wrong in the core
area, but it is a matter of how it is being designed. The site
needs to be designed in a way to allow more views of the
mountains.
11. Committee Member Bobbitt said that really is the key issue. He
gave an example of the Walmart design and how the applicant
met the Highway 111 Design Guidelines which the Committee
questioned when the project was presented. Staff
acknowledged the action taken and replied the Council is
looking to staff and the Commissions to be more critical in their
analysis of projects. The Committee Members were encouraged
to put their concerns on record.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt had an issue regarding the Village.
He said the Committee was concerned from the beginning about
the Village. He likes the design and feel of Old Town, but the
biggest problem is parking. He asked if the City was going to
build a multi -story parking lot. Staff said they were currently
working on a parking study.
13. Committee Member Christopher said specific to the study, he is
concerned there is a domestic service business and they park
their cars in the retail spaces. Employees should be restricted
to park in the City parking lot and leave the parking spaces on
the street open for the retail traffic. Staff said it has to be
managed by the business owners. Convenient parking is
needed and staff is working to address this issue in the parking
study.
G �rA RnI vnn A[ Fr�AI ar RAI Nil TF¢�ni ar zF_na nnr 6
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said Old Town comes closer to the
type of design he would like to see in the Village, including the
style elements. The Palmer project has none of those elements.
He would prefer suggesting the applicants change the design of
the buildings to be more compatible.
15. Committee Member Christopher said it is important for the
Committee to say what we feel about the architecture. One of
the things he brought up to the Council was creating some
continuity in architectural pockets of design within a
commercial area. La Quinta is an eclectic community. When
you go to a place that has a distinct architectural style within its
core that will be the place people will remember. No one is
against eclectic overview, but it makes a lot of sense when you
are planning a city, to create continuity within pockets of
architecture. This is what staff and the Committee/Commissions
should be doing. People will walk the streets in future years
and remember the continuity of style.
16. Staff said we may not be able to do that with the whole City,
but maybe within the Village. Staff will be watching what
happens in the next year, but the Committee should be seeing
some new guidelines and direction.
17. Committee Member Bobbitt said he is going to take that
direction with the Village and the Highway 111 Corridor. There
isn't much left to build on out there. Staff said they are starting
to check for that now. They've had a handful of Village area
projects that did not work with the architectural style and they
have advised the clients of that fact.
18. Committee Member Bobbitt said developers want to maximize
their property, but using every square inch does not maximize
the architecture.
19. Committee Member Christopher discussed design elements and
stepping back the height on buildings in the Village. This
Committee should be very sensitive to those issues as they
come forward. If a developer can not do a project for the profit
they anticipate, they will not do the project. The Committee
does not want to stop projects, but needs to act with more
scrutiny with regard to some of these projects. The City now
has the benefit of being in a place where people want to come.
The image of La Quinta needs to be preserved. If the
Pnr&RnI VAhAI PrIAI Pr MI All ITFC\AI Pr T_F_nR nM 7
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
Committee adheres to higher standards they will end up with a
higher quality project. Staff said they want to raise the bar and
get critical evaluations into the process.
20. Committee Member Bobbitt said the hardest thing is the
balancing act between being developer -friendly and getting a
good end project. If you tighten down the project you might
scare the developers away. Staff said a lot of times it has to do
with good communications with the developers on what the
City expects. We are trying to find ways of communicating this
to the developers earlier in the project.
21. Committee Member Bobbitt said with the amount of
development going on in the south and southeast they still do
not have any commercial. His concern is the corner shopping
centers are going to be very important. The design of the
centers will be critical to make sure they remain neighborhood
centers, instead of strip malls with Von's or Walgreen's. He
would like to make sure they remain neighborhood shopping
centers. Staff said they have had a few inquiries of interest.
22. Committee Member Bobbitt said he was criticized for the
project on the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue
52.
23. Committee Member Christopher said it would have been better
left as a retail site. It would have serviced the community.
There is too much pressure to do residential. In the area south
of PGA West there will probably be a lot of 40, 60, and 80 acre
projects with no continuity because there are a lot of separate
owners. Developers will build their units and leave. He asked
what they could do to encourage the developers to work
together with adjoining property owners to build more
compatibly projects. Property owners in Andalusia have to go
to Ralphs at Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street to shop. Maybe
the City could provide some incentive to putting in a commercial
center further south. Corners that are designated to have
commercial, should remain commercial.
24. Committee Member Bobbitt said the City needs a landscape
inspector to go out and check the landscaping for the projects.
There is no one to insure that happens. Without that person,
these developers will get low bids and downsize the
landscaping. They will spec high cost items and put in low cost
P ern RnI vnn A Pr�AI ar RAI nu JTcc�ei ar zF_nF nnr 8
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
items instead. The cost is then passed on to the developers.
It's just like taking away the building inspectors. This will not
happen with places like the Madison Club, or the Hideaway, but
the average developer will put in low bid landscaping. Staff
said they are not inspecting irrigation, but are checking
plantings in comparison to the approved plans.
25. Committee Member Bobbitt said both box and caliper size have
good and bad sides. You have to be careful with either
designation. He has worked with people who did trench tests,
pressure tests, valve tests, etc., and it was more expensive for
the developer, but it made for a great product. The City needs
a full-time landscape inspector to make sure the irrigation
systems are the same type as noted on the original plans.
Generally the landscaping will deteriorate, especially in
commercial developments, if not maintained properly.
26. Committee Member Christopher said one of the things he found
recently is the trend toward subterranean parking in commercial
real estate and development. He said it was something the City
should be considering and where feasible, put in underground
parking. The concern of the citizens is they cannot get around
in the Village and they expect to get within a half -a -block of
where they're going. It's cheaper to dig in this area than in
others. The City should seriously consider underground parking.
Staff said the draft Parking Study states the subterranean
parking is driven by the price of the property. With the prices in
the Village going up, subterranean parking is now becoming a
viable option
27. Committee Member Christopher said it's not going to become
cheaper. Other cities are beginning to refuse plans without
subterranean parking in the plan design. La Quinta is getting to
that stage. We need to seriously look at where the City is
going to be in 20 years. Staff said part of the Village Parking
Study showed comments about deficiency of parking. This was
not completely true, it was a matter of convenience; and as the
Village builds out where is the demand going to be: structure
parking, fee -in -lieu of option, looking into future needs. Can the
City accommodate future growth.
P.,r A ani vnnni arial ar nninu ircc�nI ar vF_na nnr 9
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
July 5, 2006
28. Committee Member Christopher gave an example of a negative
model of in -lieu fee funds for parking in Sun Valley, Idaho. He
cautioned the in -lieu fees should be protected from using it for
City General Funds.
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
A. Committee Member Christopher notified the Committee he will be out
during the months of August, September and October and asked to be
excused for those months.
B. Committee Member Christopher wanted to call attention to the
Walgreens located at Washington Street and Avenue 48. He reminded
the Committee of the conditions imposed by the City Council. Those
conditions included the caveat, when the additional infill office
buildings were considered, substantial landscaping be added to the
Avenue 48 planting corridor between the curb and the buildings. He
wanted his comments on record since he may be out when this item
comes up for review. He said the Council had suggested 48 to 60
inch box trees. That was part of the Rancho La Quinta's populace
signing off on the project. The current landscaping is sparse and
poorly maintained. He added if the office buildings come in for review
he wanted to go on record this was said two years ago.
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural
and Landscaping Review Committee to a special meeting to be held on July 12,
2006. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :26 a.m. on July 5, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
CAROLYN WALKER
Secretary
P9 r a Pni vnnni Pr�AI Pr KAInu ircc\AI ar zF_na nnr 10
04 /rye ot 4 QUM&
cF`y OF ith�
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: AUGUST 2, 2006
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-866
APPLICANT: TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC.
ARCHITECT: MSA CONSULTING INC.
A
o
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
THE GRIFFIN RANCH SADDLE CLUB
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, '/4 MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE
54
BACKGROUND:
The residential portions of the Griffin Ranch project were previously reviewed by the
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee on March 1, 2006 under Site
Development Permit SDP 06-853. This equestrian facility will be utilized by residents
of both Griffin Ranch and the general public. For many years the subject property has
been predominately equestrian use with over 100 horses boarded and trained on site
when in full operation.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted colored elevations, landscaping plans, and site plans for
stables, a covered arena, a caretaker's residence, and related accessory buildings. All of
the buildings proposed are intended to be metal paneled, steel -framed agricultural
structures. The two existing residential buildings located on site will be incorporated
into the project for use as an office and clubhouse. The applicants have submitted a
landscaping plan and palate.
Project Layout — Main entry to the Saddle Club will be via Monroe Street. The main
entry is the only portion of the project proposed to be paved. The interior roads will
consist of decomposed granite or other similar material. A second entry will be
provided in the northwest corner of the site and will be for the exclusive use of Griffin
Ranch residents. The interior drive will be designed to accommodate large vehicles as
the trash, recycling, manure, chips, and hay storage areas are located in the northwest
corner of the site. Turnout pastures located along the northeast portion of the site
PAReports - A1_RC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC SDP 06-866 SADDLE CLUB.doc
have been leased from the adjoining property owner who also lives on the property.
The drive along the south property line, immediately south of the covered stalls, will be
blocked via gates (the plans erroneously identify bollards) and will only available for
emergency use. The primary fencing for the project will consist of white split -rail
fencing.
The applicants have already made a number of site plan modifications at the request of
neighbors and staff. The modifications included the re -orientation of the barn and
manure storage buildings away from the southern property line. The exercise pens
have been shifted as far to the north as possible, but are limited from further
modification due to drainage retention.
Pathways are proposed between the barns, stalls, covered arena, exercise pen,
outdoor arena, and turnout pastures. The pathway to the turnout pastures has been
recommended to provide a gated connection with the multi -purpose trail along the
west side of Monroe Street.
Landscaping — The applicants have submitted a conceptual landscaping plan with an
extensive palate (Attachment 2). The primary ground cover throughout the project will
be turf, necessary for both equestrian functions and dust control. Monroe Street and
the main entry road are identified to be lined with canopy trees in the conceptual
landscaping plan. The gated entry has been identified to be planted with perennials and
includes a water feature. A main focal point of the site will be the center turnaround
adjacent to the covered arena and barns. Landscaping plans identify this center
turnaround to have a flower bed and potential fountain. The applicants are attempting
to obtain a permit from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in order to provide
additional buffering landscaping within the sewer easement along the southern
property line. Staff has recommended utilizing landscaping as a buffer between the
project and adjacent residences and removing Oleander and other poisonous plants
from the plant list.
Covered Riding Arena with Stalls - At the center of the Saddle Club, the applicants are
proposing to construct a 37,500 SF covered riding arena. The 24'6" tall covered arena
will be open -sided with the exception of the north and south sides flanked by covered
stalls. The roof material will consist of 26 guage R-panel zincalume steel with a light
tan ("lightstone") colored, baked enamel coating. The roofline fascia will consist of
green painted aluminum trim. The attached covered stalls will also be constructed of
the same roofing material, but will consist of sidewalls manufactured from steel -sided
plywood, coated with a similar baked enamel material as the roofing, colored a slightly
darker tan than the roofing material. The wall beams identified in the colored elevations
will be a darker tan color than the adjacent wall paneling.
Horse Barns - The project will include two inward -facing, elongated, horse barns
consisting of 20 stalls each. The roofline of the barns will be 15'3" in height and will be
constructed from the same materials and utilize the same color scheme as the covered
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC SDP 06-866 SADDLE CLUB.doc
arena and stalls. The center aisle will be constructed with paver flooring. Each stall will
be connected to a 12' x 12' run with an exit gate.
Accessory Buildings - Accessory buildings will be constructed of the same materials and
color scheme as the other structures. The site will have four. accessory buildings: a
manure storage building, wood shaving storage building, hay storage building, and
maintenance building.
The manure storage building will be the smallest of the four structures, 14' x 26' in size
(364 SF) and 17' in height, designed to enclose a single roll -off waste hauler which is
proposed to be removed of manure every other day.
The wood shaving and hay storage buildings will each be identical in size and height,
40' x 75' in size (3,000 SF) and 21'6" in height at the peak of their roofline.
A maintenance building will also be included to house machinery, and will be 24' x 50'
in size (1,200 SF) and 17' 6" in height.
Caretaker's Residence - At the southwest corner of the site, the applicants are
proposing a 999 SF caretaker's residence. The 14' 2 7/8" high, three bedroom, ranch -
style home will have a concrete tile roof, stucco walls, wood trim and columns, and a
carport. The applicants have stated the caretaker's residence will be painted with the
same color scheme as the adjacent accessory structures.
Existing Buildings - The applicants have stated that no architectural modifications will
be made to the two existing residential buildings on site. These buildings will be
painted. They will be used as an office and clubhouse for patrons of the equestrian
club. The clubhouse will not be staffed and will essentially serve as a lounge and
waiting room. The existing pool will be fenced and used by the caretaker and manager.
ANALYSIS:
As this is the first equestrian facility to be constructed within the City, this project is
expected to set the standards for potential future equestrian facilities in the Vista Santa
Rosa Sphere of Influence.
Issues related to the proximity of the equestrian facility to the adjacent residences have
been a major concern of staff. As a result, staff is recommending the applicant provide
additional landscape buffering and rotate the open end of the stables attached to the
southern half of the covered arena away from the adjacent residences. The applicant is
currently reviewing the feasibility of this rotation and will address the issue during the
meeting.
The proposed multi -purpose trail design along Monroe Street identifies the trail as being
parallel to the sidewalk. The City standard design detail calls for a few feet of
landscaping and a split rail fence to separate horses from pedestrians. Staff has
recommended this be modified in condition #1 below. Staff also has an interest in the
P:\Reports - A1_RC\2006\8-2-06\A1_RC SDP 06-866 SADDLE CLUB.doc
facility providing connectivity to the multi -purpose trail system and has recommended
the installation of a horse gate at the end of the turnout pastures with condition number
#5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of a minute motion accepting the plans for Site
Development Permit 2006-866, to include the following recommendations:
1 . The Monroe Street perimeter shall be redesigned to more closely match the City
of La Quinta standard multi -purpose trail detail in order to allow for an absolute
minimum of 3' to 4' feet of additional landscaped space between the trail and
sidewalk. The design intent is to pull the trail away from the street and
sidewalk.
2. The open stables along the south face of the covered arena shall be reversed so
as to not orient the open end towards the adjacent residential properties.
3. Oleanders and any other plant species deemed poisonous to livestock shall be
removed from the approved landscaping plant list. Any existing plant species
deemed poisonous shall be removed from the project site.
4. A substantial landscape buffer shall be planted along property boundaries
adjacent to residential areas. A hedge row and double tree line shall be planted
along the southern property line.
5. Enhanced landscape screening shall be planted along Monroe Street.
6. The applicants shall provide a gated pedestrian/equestrian connection at the end
of the horse trail between the turnout pastures and the multi -purpose trail along
Monroe Street.
7. If deemed necessary, the south property line wall shall be replaced with an 8'
high wall.
8. Final landscaping plans shall be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscaping
Review Committee and approved by staff.
Transmitted by:
And J. Mogensen
As ociate Planner
PAReports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC SDP 06-866 SADDLE CLUB.doc
Attachments:
1. Color Site Plans and Elevations
2. Operational Plan and Landscaping Palate
3. City of La Quinta Multi -Purpose Trail Detail (reference)
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC SDP 06-866 SADDLE CLUB.doc
SADDLE CLUB
List of Exhibits
Overall Site Plan
Main Entry Elevation
Main Entry Plan View
Meadow Planting Plan
Perimeter Cross -Section and Plan View
Fence Elevations
Round — About Planting Plan
Existing Residence and Proposed Clubhouse Site Photographs
Covered Arena Rendering
Covered Arena Elevations
Barn Rendering
Barn Elevations
Maintenance Building Elevations
Wood Chip and Hay Building Elevations
WOOD VEHICULAR GATE
WITH WROUGHT IRON 0
MATCH GRIFFIN RANG
ENTRY GATE
RUSTIC LIGHTI
FIXTUR
CANOPY TREES
3-RAIL FENCING
DESERT SHRUBS AND
ACCENTS
WITH TILE INLAY AND 5RICK CAP
N.T.S.
c
o
w
> ma
m JW
W OU)
W
Z, 0 Q
c �0
W NF
C �
Z
0
"'act,"
W4
4 '.
��. =. ram... r
5-RAIL FENCING
DESERT SHRUBS
AND ACCENTS
MULTI -PURPOSE TRAIL
SIDEWALK
o raves AND ACCENTS
5GALE I"=10'
Ll a 0�
m
PERIMETER WALL
ENrIN& FOR
o wiMFTF_RI TURNOUT PA57VRE5, AND EEGVE5TRIANXERCI5E PENS
56" HIGH 2-RAIL TAN CONCRETE FENCING WITH WOOD GRAIN
FINISH FOR 51DEWALK AND MULTI -PURPOSE TRAIL SEPARATION
DOUBLE BRICK CAP
N
�
C
?
51NGLE BRICK CAP
O
m d
ro
W
PRECISION BLOCK WALL
>
J
U N
WITH SMOOTH STUCCO
FINISH
W
W
oa
Z
N
<0
0
LL
N.T.S.
mop_,
3 -
�.\/\ � ���\
�. : � «:�
\\ \� � ? 2� ?� �
�������\+
r
i
C
C ma
N�
JW
'p 0 (o
C
Q% J J
�Z
0
L (q F
W Z
0
0
m
N.T.S.
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
N.T.S.
N 2
C ¢
0 ma
JN
JJ
W �Z0
C Q
z
m Z
U
nR
C��
NORTH ELtVA II( N
498'
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
N.T.S.
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
N.T.S.
1 x, <i
�lglu!o-
I I,
16'
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
1{,
{
14'
EAST ELEVATION
N.T.S.
ma
JW
U�
WJ
JQ
OZ
QO
No
Z
0
U
Fi1�t BOOR PLAN 999 BA
TT
LER 81Di ELEVATION
rT �viT
J
RIGHT 01DE ELEVATION
FRONT ELEvaTION
QE�lm ELEvaTION
G R i F
Attachment 2
THE SADDLE CLUB, A COMMERCIAL EQUESTRIAN
RIDING AND BOARDING CENTER
OPERATION
The facilities are planned for up to 90 horses. There will be no outside PA system, or
organized non-resident events or shows. The only lighting will be for security, the stalls,
aisle -ways, and covered arena.
There will be 24 hour on -site supervision, the stalls will be cleaned daily, the horses will
be fed in the a.m. and p.m., and grain will be fed upon supply and request. The feed
choices are alfalfa or grass hay. Wood shavings will be available for the stalls. The
horses will be rotated out of their stall 3 days per week and put in the grass turnouts or
the hot walker or lunge. All non -grass (planted) areas including the arenas and trails will
be watered daily to control dust.
The riding and activity hours are daily from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. except for the summer
hours when the activity will take place during the cooler hours of the day. These hours
have been established to minimize the amount of dust and order. The horse owners are
allowed to tend to their horses during riding and activity hours and the cooler early
morning or evening hours.
A fly (insect) spray system, and high pressure mist cool -fog cooling system will be
provided to all stalls, aisles, and work areas. The manure storage building will also have
a fly (insect) spray system. In addition, odor control blocks will be placed approximately
every fifty (50) to seventy five (75) feet along the southern property boundary. This
property boundary will be landscaped with Palm and non -deciduous trees to provide
visual screening. This landscaping, combined with watering will control and contain the
dust to the site.
Grooming, tacking and farrier lessons, and training services will be available. Non -horse
owner riding programs will be provided in the winter months.
The existing house will become the general club house facility, and a new caretaker
residence will be constructed west of the Covered Arena.
Residents of Griffin Ranch will have access to the private equestrian trails that will be
developed as part of the Griffin Ranch development. These trails will connect to the
public multi -purpose trails system established by the City.
The entrance to the Saddle Club will be from Monroe Street. A future secondary access
will be provided for Griffin Ranch residents from a fixture development to the north.
FACILITIES
The following facilities will be provided on site
A 150' x 250' covered arena having a ridgeline height of 24'-6", with lights and a fan
system;
An uncovered exercise area (20m x 60m) with white vinyl rails -sand footings;
A 150' x 250' oval exercise area with 5' tall 4 rails galvanized panels — sand footing,
containing an 8-piece PVC jump course;
Eight 100' x 130' grass turnout areas with white 3 vinyl rails;
A 50' round pen having a slanted 8' wall with 4' solid bottom and 4-rail top- sand
footing;
50' round 6-horse paneled walker with galvanized panel horse fence with vinyl exterior;
Two shed row horse barns containing 2 rows of 17 stalls attached to the covered Arena
on the north and south sides. The stalls and aisle -ways have lights. The center aisle -way
will have paver flooring. Each individual stall is 12' x 12' with mats, grilled front slider
doors and solid rear slider doors, blanket rack, bucket hooks, automatic water troughs,
hay rack, and feeder bins. Connected to the each stall is a 12' x 12' run, having 6' tall
fence with 6 rails, and a rear exit gate, Center dividers have 4' solid walls with 2 rails;
Two raised center aisle -way barns having a ridge line height of 15'-3", and containing 20
stalls each. The stalls and aisle -way have lights. The center aisle -way will have paver
flooring. Each individual stall is 12' x 12' with mats, grilled front slider doors and solid
rear slider doors, blanket rack, bucket hooks, automatic water troughs, hay rack, and
feeder bins. Connected to each stall is a 12' x 12' run, having 6' tall fence with 6 rails,
and a rear exit gate, Center dividers have 4' solid walls with 2 rails;
Tack lockers having dimensions of 8' x 4' x 3' with 2 saddle racks, 3 bridle racks and
room for a tack trunk;
Hot and cold wash rack/grooming stations having dimensions of 8' x 12' with 10' wall
dividers of which 4' is solid. P
Professional groomer vacuum systems;
A full bathroom with shower, sink and toilet, and wash room with industrial strength
washer and dryer in each barn area;
A small feed room in each barn;
One hay shaving storage building having dimensions of 40' x 75' with a ridgeline height
of21'-6';
One wood shaving storage building having dimensions of 40' x 75' with a ridgeline
height of 21'-6' ;
One maintenance building with slider doors having dimensions of 24' x 50' with a
ridgeline height of 17'-6"; and
One central manure building (14' x 26', with a ridgeline of height of 17') will be
provided north of the hay/wood shaving buildings which will house a 30-yard roll -off
container. The local waste hauler will dump the bin every other day or as needed. The
manure that is in the grass turnouts will be ground mulched. In addition in this general
area, the daily household trash, recycling and green waste bins will be located.
(Revised 6-8-06)
Saddle Club
Operations Plan:
• 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM — Riding and Activity Hours
** Summer Hours may extend later during cooler hours.
Vector Control Plan:
➢ Facilities are planned for up to 90 horses;
➢ 24-hour on -site facility management;
➢ Stalls will be cleaned daily;
➢ AM and PM feeding of horses;
➢ Fly/insect spray system will be installed at the manure storage building,
stalls, aisles and work areas;
➢ Misting, cool -fog system will be provided at all stalls, aisles and work
areas;
➢ Odor control blocks will be placed every 50 to 75 feet along the southern
property boundary;
➢ Manure building —bins will be hauled away every other day or as needed.
Fugitive Dust Control Plan:
➢ The project will comply with requirements of the City of La Quinta
Municipal Code, Chapter 6.16 Fugitive Dust Control;
➢ Non -grass areas, including arenas and trails, will be watered daily;
➢ Southern boundary will be landscaped with palm and non -deciduous
trees;
➢ Watering of the area will be provided to contain dust to the site.
Saddle Club Devei.,pment Standards
June 28, 2006
Development Standards
City of La Quinta
Proposed
Accessory Buildings
Height
2 stories/35 It
21 ft, 6 in
Setbacks — from overlay property line
loft
30 ft
Non -overlay property line
25 ft
n/a
Residential structure
80 ft
80 ft
Setbacks of Underlying Zone - RVL
Front yard minimum
30 ft
n/a
Side yard minimum— interior/exterior
10 ft / 20 ft
n/a
Rear yard minimum
30 ft
n/a
Accessory Structures
Setbacks — from overlay property line
loft
40 ft
Non -overlay property line
35 f
n/a
Residential structure
96 ft
Caretaker and Employee Housing
Setbacks of Underlying Zone - RVL
Front yard minimum
30 ft
n/a
Side yard minimum— interior/exterior
10 ft / 20 ft
35 ft / 50 ft
Rear and minimum
30 ft
33 ft
Unit Size (square feet) —
_
1000 sf
1000 sf
Arenas
Setbacks —from property line(generally)
75 ft _
104 ft
from residential structure
80 ft
96 ft
Manure Storage Containers
Setbacks - from non -overlay property
line
50 ft
n/a
From other property lines
20 ft
25 ft
Manure Spreading Areas
Shall not be established within 25 feet of
Any property line
25 ft
30 ft / 40 ft
Pasture
No setback required unless it does not
extend to a property line, then
minimum setback to property line
loft
15 ft
SADDLE CLUB
PLANT PALETTE
Botanical Name
Trees
Acacia smallii
Acacia salicina
Acacia stenophylla
Cercidium'Desert Musem'
Cercidium floridum
Cercidium praecox
Chilopsis linearis
Citrus
Eucalypus microtheca
Ficus retusa 'Nitida'
Fraxinus uhdei 'Majestic Beauty'
Geijera parvifolia
Jacaranda mimosifolia
Lysiloma thornberi
Olea Europe 'Wilsoni'or'Swan Hill'
Prosopis glandulosa
Quercus virginiana 'Heritage'
Rhuslancea
Schinus molle
Thevetia peruviana
Palms
Brahea armata
Butia capitata
Chamerops humilis
Cocos plumose
Cycas revoluta
Phoenix dactylifera
Phoenix roebelenii
Washingtonia hybrid
-1-
Common Name
Sweet Acacia
Willow Acacia
Shoestring Acacia
Palo Verde
Blue Palo Verde
Sonoran Palo Verde
Desert Willow
Citrus Tree
Coolibah
Indian Laurel Fig
Evergreen Ash
Australian Willow
Jacaranda
Feather Bush
Olive
Texan Honey Mesquite
Heritage Live Oak
African Sumac
California Pepper
Yellow Oleander
Mexican Blue Palm
Pindo Palm
Mediterranean Fan Palm
Queen Palm
Sago Palm
Date Palm
Pigmy Date Palm
California Fan Palm
Shrubs
Bougainvillea'00 LA LA'
Shrub Bougainvillea
Buxus microphylla japonica
Japanese Boxwood
Caesalpina gilliesii
Mexican Bird of Paradise
Caesalpina putcherrima
Red Bird of Paradise
Callistemon viminalis 'Little John'
Dwarf Weeping Bottlebrush
Carissa macrocarpa 'boxwood beauty'
Natal Plum
Carissa macrocarpa'Tuttlei'
Natal Plum
Cassia nemophila
Bushy Senna
Cassia phyllodenia
Silver Leaf Cassia
Dodonea viscosa
Hopseed Bush
Encelia farinosa
Brittle Bush
Euryops p. 'Viridis'
Green -leaf Euryops
Ilex vomitoda'Stokes'
Stokes Holly
Justicia spicigera
Mexican Honeysuckle
Leucophyllum f. 'Rio Bravo'
Texas Ranger
Leucophyllum f. 'Sierra Banquet'
Texas Ranger
Ligustrum j. 'Texanum'
Texas Privet
Myrtus communis 'Compacta'
Dwarf Myrtle
Muhlenbergia lindheimeri 'Regal Mist'
Deer Grass
Nandina domestica 'Compacta'
Compact Heavenly Bamboo
Nandina domestica 'Harbor Dwarf'
Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo
Nandina domestica 'Nana'
Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo
Nerium oleander'Petite Pink'
Dwarf Oleander
Rhaphiolepis i. 'Ballerina'
Indian Hawthorn
Rhaphiolepis i. 'Springtime'
Indian Hawthorn
Photinia fraseri
Fraser's Photinia
Pittosporum tobira 'Variegate'
Variegated Mock Orange
Pittosporum tobira 'Wheeleri'
Dwarf Mock Orange
Salvia g. 'Sierra Linda'
Red Sage
Salvia Leucantha
Mexican Bush Sage
Thevetia peruviana
Yellow Oleander
Xylosma congestum
Shiny Xylosma
Xylosma c. 'Compacta'
Dwarf Xylosma
Groundcover
Annual Color
Seasonal Flowers
Acacia r. 'Desert Carpet'
Trailing Acacia
Baccharis p. 'Centennial'
Coyote Bush
Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet'
Natal Plum
Dalea greggii
Prostrate Indigo Bush
Gazania 'Mitsua Orange'
Gazania
Gazania'Mitsua Yellow'
Gazania
Gazania rigens leucolaena
Trailing Gazania
Lantana montevedensis
Purple Prostrate Lantana
Lantana m. 'New Gold'
Yellow Prostrate Lantana
Rosmarinus o. 'Lockwood de Forest'
Dwarf Rosemary
Santolina virens
Green Santolina
Verbena peruviana
Verbena
Verbena p.'Starfire'
Verbena
Verbena rigida
Verbena
-p.
Espaliers & Vines
Bougainvi Ilea 'Barbara Karst'
Bougainvillea
Bougainvillea 'Lavender Queen'
Bougainvillea
Calliandra inequilatera
Pink Powder Puff
Ficus pumila
Creeping Fig
Gelsemium sempervirens
Carolina Jessamine
Macfadyena unguis-cat!
Cat's Claw Vine
Tecomaria capensis
Cape Honeysuckle
Accents
Agave Americana
Century Plant
Aloe variegate
Partridge Breast Aloe
Dasylirion wheeled
Desert Spoon
Hesperaloe parviflora
Red Yucca
Yucca pendula
Yucca
3-
SADDLE CLUB
List of Exhibits
Overall Site Plan
Main Entry Elevation
Main Entry Plan View
Meadow Planting Plan
Perimeter Cross -Section and Plan View
Fence Elevations
Round — About Planting Plan
Existing Residence and Proposed Clubhouse Site Photographs
Covered Arena Rendering
Covered Arena Elevations
Barn Rendering
Barn Elevations
Maintenance Building Elevations
Wood Chip and Hay Building Elevations
Attachment 3
STREET
RfW
%NDSCAPEDSETBACK
TRAIL EASEMENT
10' MIN.
36" HIGH PVC "SPLIT" RAIL
FENCE WITH TWO RAILS
CHRIS A. VOGT
CITY ENGINEER
RCE 44250
10' MIN.
VARIABLE
e,
SIDEWA
296i 2%►
22%i
`&iY'°I'4Qu^fu
P.C.C. CURB I
IL
� AC. DIKE
STANDARD
260
EET 1 OF 1
BI #B
s ,� tu�rcv
5
OF
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT
ARCHITECT
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
AUGUST 2, 2006
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2006-034
LENCH DESIGN STUDIO, INC.
XAVIER URBINA, ARCHITECT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
TOWN HOMES LOCATED IN THE VILLAGE DISTRICT
LOCATION: NORTHWEST SIDE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, ACROSS THE
STREET AND NORTH OF FRANCIS HACK PARK
Attached are the plans and materials board for this proposal for your review, comment,
and discussion at the meeting (Attachments 1, 2, 3, & 4).
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to construct eight, two-story, single family detached town
homes in the Village Commercial District. The project is located along the northwest
side of Avenida Montezuma, across the street from Francis Hack Park. Each unit is
proposed to be constructed on an individual lot. Although four town home models are
proposed, each unit will have a different exterior design. The four plans will range in
size from 3,322 to 4,284 square feet.
Homes facades will utilize near -white stucco with varying patterns of stack stone.
Travertine lintels and arches are proposed around some doors and windows. All
proposed units will have some variation on balcony design and placement. Front
balconies will consist of black or dark -colored wrought -iron railings and rear balconies
will vary with stucco or half -railings. Building doors and windows will have the
appearance of distressed wood. Roofing material is proposed to be a random boosted
clay tile with variations of three colors. Building heights will be approximately 30' 9"
and rooflines will have a horizontal alignment.
Each town home is proposed to have a 9' privacy wall on three sides with the fourth
PAReports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC VUP 06-034 LENCH.doc
side to consist of a windowless elevation built to the property line. Garages will be
located at the rear of the residences and will be accessed via a 20' gated driveway
connecting to either Avenida Martinez or the alley. Front and rear gates will consist of
variations of re -sawn cedar or distressed wood mounted on metal frames. Walls along
the front are proposed to have a staggered setback.
Project landscaping will utilize the existing fan palms along Avenida Montezuma,
supplemented by Eucalyptus trees, Palo Verde trees, and additional palm trees. The
applicants have identified a stone paver sidewalk along the street with various to -be -
determined shrubs.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION:
While there are a number of positive design elements incorporated into the project, and
the addition of residential units would be a desirable contribution to the Village, the
layout and design of the proposed town homes need significant revision and polishing
in order to better meet the Village Design Guidelines and be consistent with other
recently constructed and approved village projects. Concern has been raised with
regards to the project's overall vertical building massing versus elements of width. The
project is recommended for revision in order to eliminate blank elevations, excessive
wall heights, and to provide a layout and architectural design more compatible and
consistent with the Village Design Guidelines. Modifications to the proposed building
footprints, massing, facade, and certain elements of the architectural design are
necessary.
Walls: A significant design issue involves the proposed walls. By incorporating a nine
foot block wall around each unit, the town homes segregate from, rather than
contribute to, public space in the Village. LQMC Section 9.160.030 (C) limits wall
height in the front yard setback to a maximum height of five feet and side and rear
walls to six feet. In response, the applicants have made the argument that the
proposed town homes are intended as exclusive private residences and are not
intended to contribute to the public space. Specific to this issue, the Village Design
Guidelines state the following:
• Proper design of outdoor spaces is essential to the Village (p.1 1).
• Buildings should be designed to increase activity; frontages are
essential to the downtown pedestrian character of the Village
(p•23).
• Buildings shall incorporate design elements that draw in
pedestrians and reinforce street activities (p.10).
There are a number of design enhancements that could improve the relationship
between the proposed homes and the public space along the front, while still retaining
a sense of private space. As Village buildings are encouraged to be visible and
pedestrian -oriented, the proposed nine -foot block wall should be replaced with a lower
PAReports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC VUP 06-034 LENCH.doc
permitted wall having varied setbacks and possibly some wrought iron fencing. The
code permits up to 5' high walls in the front setbacks. A linear wall along the front of
the homes would not be recommended. Sections of blank wall could be eliminated by
incorporating elements such as decorative bench seating, art features such as tiles or
mosaics, water fountains, or Bougainvillea landscaping into blank exterior stretches of
wall. Hedges or Bougainvillea grown into wrought -iron fences could be an alternative
to stuccoed block walls. Wall nooks and corners could be useful locations for planters,
fountains, or bench seating. Gates could also be designed so that not all face the
street. There are a number of outstanding examples of sensitive, interactive, and
secure perimeters found in projects located throughout southern California.
Elevations: Another factor discouraged under the Village Design Guidelines regards the
blank side elevation identified for each home. The applicant has elected to place the
footprint of each proposed unit within the pre-existing lots resulting on one of the side
elevations being placed on property line. This side elevation has been designed as a
blank wall with a single recess. The current lot configurations are not conducive to the
proposed building footprint, which at a minimum results in an elevation with an
unacceptable aesthetic.
The Village Design Guidelines state that "Buildings shall be designed with appropriate
architectural variation and detailing to break up monotonous building elevations.
Treatments such as graduated heights, balconies, recessed and extended building
sections, staggered setbacks, etc. should be employed (p.10)."
Although the facade and roofline of each unit provides some variation in the pattern
and placement of architectural features and materials, the project as a whole presents
a monotonous appearance. Projects in the Village are encouraged to each have a
unique appearance. The building rooflines maintain a consistent horizontal appearance
lacking any pop -outs, hips, or gable variations. Staff also has reservations in regards to
the lack of variation with the facades in regards to consistency with the Village Design
Guidelines. The proposed stack stone and travertine are better associated with Italian,
Postmodern, or western -inspired architecture, and often with standard production
housing. No sample of the proposed travertine has been submitted, though the
applicants have stated that it will be naturally textured and a gray color. Staff is
supportive of the applicant's choice of random boosted clay roof tile, wooden gate
designs, and distressed window and door treatments.
Landscaping: Staff has not been provided with a detailed landscaping palate and has
limited material to provide comment. Landscaping should also be incorporated along
the rear of the properties, especially at those locations where the rear yard fronts
Avenida Martinez. The applicant is recommended to revise the plans in order to provide
more landscaping details at a future ALRC meeting.
In conclusion, while supportive of the addition of residential land uses, it is Staff's
position that the proposed project is not compatible with recently approved
PAReports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC VUP 06-034 LENCH.doc
surrounding development and the quality of design illustrated in the Village at La
Quinta Design Guidelines. Modification or possibly a complete redesign of the
architecture and site layout is necessary. The applicant is strongly encouraged to
consider the applicable goals, guiding principals and design illustrations provided in the
Guidelines when redesigning this project. In addition, the following points are
provided:
1 . The applicant shall reconsider the layout, footprint, and design of the proposed
town homes. The project shall be revised to eliminate blank, windowless walls.
If the applicant wishes to pursue single family detached residences, reductions
may be necessary to the building massing and footprints.
2. The applicant shall reduce the proposed walls to meet Section 9.160.030 (C) of
the Zoning Ordinance. Staff discourages the use of continuous block walls along
the front, but suggests that the applicant explore creative design details for
incorporation into an improved wall design.
3. The applicants shall revise the roofline of all units so as to reduce or eliminate
the horizontal arrangement. This can be achieved through the use of hips, pop -
outs, varied gables, and some single story elements.
4. The applicant shall revise the proposed facade of each unit to utilize materials
and colors more appropriate under the Village Design Guidelines. Design
elements applied should not be limited to the front elevations.
5. The applicant shall submit an enhanced landscaping plan and plant palate.
Sidewalk pavers and special street and sidewalk treatments should be
considered in order to accommodate ADA accessibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the ALRC continue Village Use Permit 2006-034, allowing the
applicant opportunity to redesign the project to be compatible with recently approved
surrounding development and the quality of design illustrated in the Village at La
Quinta Design Guidelines and complete the landscaping plan.
Transmitted by:
And w J. Mogensen
As ociate Planner
PAReports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC VUP 06-034 LENCH.doc
r
Attachments:
1. Development plans
2. Color Renderings
3. Color Line Drawings (to be presented during the hearing)
4. Materials Board (to be presented during the hearing)
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\8-2-06\ALRC VUP 06-034 LENCH.doc
� y P
P
e
NN
� r4i
•.AA
Awl,a -
_7r' �ii � .t�� �^ t�. !�"a #�� ♦ ° c3 Y f •_ � _, , ,
qp
��� �i� � V.. C �� •�� � .. � � � a iA� iV..1 / - � y � ��f sf i`� s ,� •"Y ���,� "� ����. �.
• q - �� - �"�` : �+1;�r��7 � per,, p@*�+.: �,.s � -
r Y
Y y �
� IR
c
is
�' K