2006 09 06 ALRCQum&
OF
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING
REVIEW COMMITTEE
A G E N D A
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2006-027
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. 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.
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approval of the Minutes of August 2, 2006.
1811111111111111 -.11i6ihil **2 111: [AN &I
A. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-853,
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Applicant ................ Trans West Housing, Inc.
Location ................. South side of Avenue 54, east side of Madison
Street, north side of Greg Norman Course project
and west of Monroe Street
Request .................. Consideration of three additional prototypical
residential floor plans for Tentative Tract Map
32879 (The Griffin Ranch)
Action .................... Minute Motion 2006-
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
B. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-867
Applicant ................ Thomas Enterprises
Location ................. North side of Highway 111, east of Adams
Street within The Pavilion at La Quinta Center
Request .................. Consideration of architectural and landscaping
plans for a 4,800 square foot restaurant
Action .................... Minute Motion 2006-
C. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-869
Applicant ................ Bill Sanchez, Project Manager
Location ................. Bounded by Highway 111, Avenue 47,
Washington Street, and Adams Street, within
Washington Park Commercial Center (Shops 1 &
2)
Request .................. Consideration of architectural and conceptual
landscaping plans for a retail commercial building
featuring eight minor units
Action .................... Minute Motion 2006-
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
Vil. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee will be
adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 4, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
1, 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, September 6, 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, September
1,2006.
DATED: September 1, 2006
B *TA�E R xecutive Secretary
Y
City 0 La QL = , &Ilifornia
G:\WPDOCS\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
August 2, 2006 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
was called to order at 10:07 a.m. by Planning Manager Les Johnson.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Tracy Smith. It was
moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to excuse
Committee Member Frank Christopher. Unanimously approved
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Associate Planner
Andrew Mogensen and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
11. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
111. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to
approve the Minutes of July 5, 2006 as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
B. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to
approve the Minutes of July 12, 2006, as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006-866; a request of Trans West Housing,
Inc., for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for The
Griffin Ranch Saddle Club for the property located on the west side of
Monroe Street, south of Avenue 54.
1 Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
r M,Pnnrq�ai Prip-i-nR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
August 2, 2006
2. Committee Member Smith asked what the surrounding land
uses were. Staff stated to the south is single-family residential
with 14 lots and north and west is the Griffin Ranch project.
Committee Member Smith asked the location of the entrances
to the project. Staff noted the two entrances from Monroe
Street and from the interior of the Griffin Project. Ms. Marty
Butler, Project Manager, noted the location of the existing
equestrian uses where there are currently 80-100 horses on
site. Staff noted the subject property is in an Equestrian
Overlay area. Mr. Jerry Herman, Trans West Housing, stated
this was a pre-existing equestrian facility and gave a description
of the previous use. He further stated they believe the use
maintains the Code definition of the use. Their issue is with
Condition No. 2; to reverse the barn or close the south end to
the residents to the south would be difficult.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff's reasoning for requiring
the reversal. Staff stated that if the horse stalls were not open
to the south it would reduce any odors, noise or other issues.
Committee Member Bobbitt stated his issue is that the barn
appears to be cheap because it is a metal building. He has no
problem with the use as it is a continued use. A second issue is
the recycled product that has been used on the multi -purpose
trails. More particularly the installation has been a problem; it
needs to be done better to keep it confined to the trails. The
installation of the edging material is 18" or longer with stakes to
make it hold up.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why staff was asking for the
separation between the pedestrian area and horse trail. Staff
stated to have a wider separation between the two uses with
landscaping separating them.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned the landscape buffer in
the CVWD easement. Staff stated it would depend on CVWD.
Mr. Herman stated they would like to recommend a living fence
and merge Condition Nos. 4 & 7 to reach a better solution.
6. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Smith/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion
2006-025 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2006-866, as recommended and amended:
r-M/Pnnrq�A1 Pr�R_1_nR nnr 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
August 2, 2006
1. The edging material used for the edging of the multi-
purpose trail shall be "trek" or similar flex -resistant edging
material and shall be staked and the stakes shall be 18"
or longer with stakes to make it hold and inspected.
2. Delete Condition No. 2.
3. Conditions Nos. 4 and 7 to be worked out with staff at
the conclusion of CVWD decision.
Unanimously approved.
B. Village Use Permit 2006-034; a request of Lench Design Studio, Inc.,
for consideration of architectural and conceptual landscaping plans for
eight single-family detached town homes for the property located on
the northwest side of Avenida Montezuma across the street and north
of Francis Hack Park, in The Village.
1 Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Smith asked how the lots got to be 40-feet in
width. Staff stated the lots are pre-existing. Commissioner
Smith stated that due to the lot sizes and constraints the
project gives the appearance of not meeting the Village
Guidelines. What if they merged all the lots? Staff stated it has
been recommended, but the applicant has chosen not to merge
the lots. Mr. Skip Lench, applicant, stated the purpose of the
individual lots has legal implications. They do have a lot of
movement in and out along the street as well as curving the
street slightly. This project is downtown and what they are
trying to do is bring residential into the downtown area. The
wall is to protect the homeowners from the activity on the
street and across the street. They could alternate the walls by
raising and lowering it in different areas and still protect the
yards.
3. Commissioner Smith noted a nine foot wall is just too high and
some of the units may just be too large. Planning Manager Les
Johnson stated the large houses on small lots are aesthetically a
concern to not become a large mass. Discussion followed
regarding the lack of townhouses in the City. Ms. Patrice
r-M/Pnnr��Al Pr�A_1_nA nnr 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
August 2, 2006
Varge, owner of the project, explained her reasoning for
wanting to have the townhouses. She compared this project to
the massing of the commercial buildings that are being
approved. Ms. Varge went on to articulate the design of the
homes,
4. Commissioner Bobbitt stated he believes it is too massive and
overbuilt. He likes the concept but, the roof lines appear to be
one long line. The side elevations could have some kind of
architectural detail. He has no objection to the front yard wall
for the courtyard. Mr. Lench stated you could not financially do
a one story. They could pull back some of the second story
elements to give differential to the look. Committee Member
Bobbitt suggested the second story have movement as far as
pushing it back on certain units. Also, the roof line with all tile
also needs some work.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the mass be broken up
with more in and out to break up the blank side walls. Mr.
Lench noted where they on the wall it was already depressed.
6. Committee Member Smith stated that if a portion of the second
story on some of the units were removed it may help the
massive look. Staff noted the stackstone is used extensively
and a substitute stone should be considered. Mr. Lench asked
for clarification on the sidewalls.
7. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion
2006-026 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2006-
034, as recommended with the following amendments:
1. The applicant shall work with staff on the
recommendations made by the Committee to reach a
solution to the issues raised.
Unanimously approved.
VL CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS
r 1%A/PnnrQXA1 Pr�Q-1-ng nnr 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
August 2, 2006
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/Smith to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 6,
2006. This meeting was adjourned at 11:56 p.m. on August 1, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER
Executive Secretary
r-iwpnnr�%m Pr�P-1-ng nnr 5
B1 #A
OF
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-853, AMENDMENT NO.1
APPLICANT: TRANS WEST HOUSING
ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRANDALL INC.
REQUEST: REVIEW OF THREE ADDITIONAL PROTOTYPICAL RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR PLANS FOR TR 32879 (GRIFFIN RANCH)
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 54, EAST SIDE OF MADISON, NORTH
SIDE OF GREG NORMAN COURSE PROJECT AND ± 1/4 MILE
WEST OF MONROE STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
BACKGROUND:
The Griffin Ranch project was originally approved by the City Council on January 4,
2004, as part of multiple approvals. The project as approved will be developed with
303 single-family lots over approximately 200 acres, with adjacent equestrian facilities
and access to the City multi -purpose trail system. The ALRC reviewed the other
collections of prototypical residential units on March 1, 2006, which were approved by
the Planning Commission on March 14, 2006. This proposal constitutes three
additional prototypical residential floor plans for the development, bringing the total
number of floor plans to 14. The applicants' purpose for adding these three floor plans
to the existing selection of homes stems from a market demand for vacation and
second -home oriented units.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted prototypical plans for three additional floor plan designs
which are referred to as the Castilla collection. These three plans will join the
previously reviewed and approved Madiera, Campania, and Sevilla collections. The
Castilla collection consists of three floor plans, with each floor plan featuring three
architectural treatments designed in line with the previous plan approvals. Each
Castilla plan offers an optional second story outdoor terrace, concrete S-tile roofing,
golf cart storage, and 2-car garages.
Plan 1 is a 2,587 SF, single story residence with two master bedrooms and an
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 06-853 Amend No.l.doc
attached guest suite/casita. Building height is 22 feet without the outdoor terrace and
28 feet including the terrace. Architectural treatments include Italian Farmhouse,
Spanish Colonial, and Contemporary Mexican.
Plan 2 is a 2,824 SF, single story residence with three bedrooms. Building height is 22
feet without the outdoor terrace and 28 feet including the terrace. Architectural
treatments include Andalusian, Contemporary Mexican, and Spanish Colonial.
Plan 3 is a 3,148 SF, single story residence with two bedrooms and a guest
suite/casita. Building height is 22 feet without the outdoor terrace and 28 feet
including the terrace. Architectural treatments include Andalusian, Italian Farmhouse,
and Spanish Colonial.
The ALRC has not yet reviewed typical individual lot landscaping plans. The developer
has requested that typical lot landscaping for this proposal and the previously reviewed
prototypical lots be presented to the ALRC for review at a future meeting.
The color boards and full-size color illustrations, will be provided at the September 6,
2006 ALRC meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Building height — Building height limitations of the specific plan approval restrict any
units within 150 feet of Madison or Avenue 54 to one-story, 22 feet in height, with
the exception of lots 20,000 square feet or greater. All of the proposed units are
single -story and 22 feet in height, with the exception of those units utilizing the
optional second -story outdoor terrace. These units will be required to adhere to this
height restriction as applicable, based on the specific plan condition, and requiring a
unit siting plan for all units.
Consistency with Prior Approved Units and the Specific Plan —The proposed Castilla
units are consistent with the prior architectural units approved by the Planning
Commission and utilize identical design treatments. Overall, the units are consistent
with the applicable development standards contained in the Specific Plan as approved
for Griffin Ranch.
During the previous hearing of the Griffin Ranch residential units, the Planning
Commission approved the proposed concrete S-tile roofing with the condition that
those units also be mudded. These units also feature concrete S-tile roofing, which
staff is recommending to be mudded for consistency. Plant palettes and landscape
improvement layouts for these plans will be submitted later; no landscape
improvement concepts or specific model complex plans are proposed at this time.
In general, staff has no significant issues with the overall architectural style and design
PAReports - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 06-853 Amend No.l.doc
tachment
MSA CONSuLmo, INC
M�o, S� & A�ms� INc
"D
Proposed Land Use Plan
Ca FR I F= F= I P4 FR ^ r%J <,—
F F� a C,— I V I C,— R I— ^ N
of these units. Casitas/exterior guest rooms will be required to be reviewed by Minor
Use Permit as part of phasing for construction. Casitas in side entry garages with
reduced setbacks are not permitted. A Minor Use Permit will be required for any model
home complex.
Staff recommends adoption of a minute motion accepting the plans for Site
Development Permit 2006-853 Amendment #1, with the condition that the units are
consistent with the existing conditions of approval.
Transmitted by:
AND5VN J. MOGENSEN
Associate Planner
Attachments:
1 . Tract 32879 layout
2. Proposed Unit Plans and Elevations
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 06-853 Amend No. 1.doc
I all Mal
cei� ot XP a"mra-4
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-867
APPLICANT: THOMAS ENTERPRISES
ARCHITECT: SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: JPBLA,INC.
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
4,800 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF ADAMS STREET IN
THE PAVILION AT LA QUINTA CENTER
BACKGROUND:
The project site is a pad within Specific Plan 2003-066 that was approved in October
2003. Construction is underway on the main building, the two pads along Adams
Street and Pad 3 on Highway 111. Additionally, Wells Fargo plans have been
approved at the east end of the project.
Previously, this pad was approved for a Chick-fil-A restaurant. That project has fallen
through resulting in the current proposal. To date, Circuit City and Bed, Bath and
Beyond have opened with construction continuing in the other areas.
PROJECT REQUEST:
This request is for a restaurant on Pad 2 with 4,800 square feet of floor area. This
will be a sit down restaurant with a small outdoor seating area and no drive-thru lane.
The building is located adjacent to Highway 111 immediately west of a driveway in
front of Bed, Bath and Beyond (Attachment 1).
The proposed architecture is similar to the other buildings in the Pavilion at La Quinta
Center and will use matching exterior colors and materials. One variation proposed are
the use of maroon colored sunbrella awnings over most of the windows. The building
will use flat and tiled parapet walls and flat and gable end tower features.
P:\REPORTS - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 2006-867 ALRC RPT.DOC
Landscaping will match that previously used in the center and include a variety of
trees, shrubs and groundcover. The landscaping south of the building along Highway
111, while shown on the conceptual landscape plan, has already been installed by the
master developer as a part of the overall project.
ISSUES:
The building architecture is compatible with the previous construction in the center.
The elevation facing Highway 111 has been provided with two trellis structures over
arched recessed openings to minimize than "back of store" look.
The building facade along Highway 111 is important as it is adjoining a designated
primary image corridor. The proposed architectural treatment has been improved over
previously approved buildings in the center. H ' owever, further refinements would
improve its appearance. The building recesses behind the two trellis structures are
arched at the top and not compatible with the flat trellis top. The two arched openings
should be straight and align with the trellis. The center opening where there is no
trellis should be changed to an arched opening with a popout trim treatment.
Condition of Approval #2A and 2B addresses these items.
On the left side of the building facing Highway 111, there are two equipment doors
facing the street. To better screen them from view, a 4' high decorative screen wall is
needed at the south edge of the walkway in front of the doors. Condition of Approval
#2C addresses this item.
The landscaping is well designed and compatible with the existing center. One
addition that is needed is a shade tree in a well on the north side of the building
adjacent to the parking spaces to provide the required shaded parking. Approval of
Approval #2D addresses this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend to the Planning
Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2006-867, subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of first
building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this
project including Highway 111 perimeter landscaping.
2. The final working drawings shall be revised to include the following:
A. The two arched recesses shown on the south building elevation shall be
straight on the top and align with the adjacent trellis top.
PAREPORTS - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 2006-867 ALRC RPT.DOC
B. The center recessed opening on the south building elevation where there
is no trellis should be changed to an arched opening with a popout trim
treatment around its edge.
C. On the south building elevation, a 4' high decorative screen wall (stucco
and El Dorado Stone) shall be provided at the south edge of the walkway
in front of the equipment doors.
D. A 36" box size Rhus lancea tree shall be provided in a well on the north
side of the building adjacent to the parking spaces to provide the required
shaded parking.
Attachment:
1 . Location Map
2. Architectural and landscaping plans
Prepared by:
GfT� 'SCAAA a
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
P:\REPORTS - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 2006-867 ALRC RPT.DOC
Lh A E
An ahm(=
gx 41
13
5
LU
B1 #C
0 S
OF
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
REQUEST:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-869
BILL SANCHEZ, PROJECT MANAGER
KKE, ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURAL AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR
A RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING FEATURING 8 MINOR UNITS
LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON
STREET, AND ADAMS STREET, WITHIN WASHINGTON PARK
COMMERCIAL CENTER (SHOPS 1 & 2)
BACKGROUND:
This phase of Washington Park consists of 8 minor tenant units constructed within the
current vacant area between Office Depot, the to -be -constructed Cost Plus World
Market, and Stein Mart. The applicants installed a parking area and driving aisle at this
location due to a perceived need for a sewer easement. This easement was later
determined to be unnecessary, resulting in the current proposal which is in
conformance with the Washington Park Specific Plan (SP 87-011, Amendment No. 4).
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The proposed Shops 1 and 2 will fill-in the existing gap between Cost Plus World
Market and Stein Mart. The proposed architectural design is similar in style to other
buildings in the commercial center, and is consistent with the Washington Park
Specific Plan. The buildings are proposed to have flat roofs with uncomplicated and
varied roof lines with deep set multi -paned windows. Facade materials consist of
smooth exterior plaster with stone veneer accents- the same used on existing portions
of Washington Park. Sidewalks will consist of stain -treated, brick pattern stamped
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 2006-869 Washington Park ALRC.doc
concrete with multi -color insets and partially covered with trellised canopies.
Landscaping will consist of tree wells and planters. Roof lines are distinctive, and vary
with the use of parapet heights and setback screening elements. Colors are compatible
with existing buildings and are consistent with the Specific Plan.
The plans identify a visual layout consistent with previous landscape designs for other
phases of Washington Park. Planters and tree wells compliment the building's
architecture and follow the decorative sidewalk pattern. Varying awnings and trellises
are proposed to provide shade for pedestrian areas. Though the applicants have not
submitted a plant palate, they have stated the landscaping will be consistent with
those used in other portions of the shopping center.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's proposed stain -treated "double -rectangle" concrete stamping pattern
has not been used on the existing portions of Washington Park, which have diamond
or square sawcut concrete patterns highlighted with pink or stained color treatments.
Staff has concerns with the rear details of the proposed Shops 1 and 2, which lack
any design treatments. Staff recommends the rear of these units either include
contrasting -color pilasters or the same banded -stone material used along the rear of
Office Depot, Target, and Stein Mart. Staff recommends the applicants provide foliage -
screening landscaping such as Mesquites or Palo Verdes within the planting areas
identified at the rear of the structure to compliment the existing row of palm trees
planted along the southern perimeter.
ITEMS FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER:
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the architectural and landscape
plans for Site Development Permit 2006-869 with the following considerations:
The rear facade of Shops 1 and 2 shall be revised to include contrasting -color
pilasters, designed in accord with the existing portions of Washington Park.
2. The applicants shall provide foliage -screening landscaping such as Mesquites or
Palo Verdes within planning areas adjacent to the rear loading areas.
3. Items cited on the materials board shall include a citation that they will be
consistent with materials used in previous approved phases of Washington Park.
Large -format color elevations will be made available during the meeting. Attached are
the proposed plans for your review, comment, and discussion at the meeting
(Attachment 1).
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 2006-869 Washington Park ALRC.doc
Transmitted by:
Andr J. Mogensen
e
Associate Planner
Attachments:
Development plans
G
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\9-6-06\SDP 2006-869 Washington Park ALRC.doc