2006 12 06 ALRCOF
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING
REVIEW COMMITTEE
A G E N D A
A Re -Scheduled Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
DECEMBER 6, 2006
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2006-034
1. 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.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approval of the Minutes of September 20, 2006.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ......................
Applicant ...............
Location ................
Request .................
Action ....................
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035, AMENDMENT #1
East of Madison, L.L.C.
South of Avenue 52 and east of Madison Street
Consideration of final working drawings for
Avenue 52, 54, and Monroe Street perimeters
around the Madison Club
Minute Motion 2006-
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
B. Item ......................
Applicant ... i ...........
Location ................
Request .................
Action ....................
C. Item .......................
Applicant ................
Location .................
Request ..................
Action ....................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-865
CNL Desert Resorts, L.P.
West side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida
Obregon
Consideration of architecture and landscaping
plans for a Signature Pool Facility
Minute Motion 2006-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-874
Komar Investments L.L.C.
South of Highway 111 at Depot Drive
Consideration of architectural and landscaping
plans for seven commercial buildings
Minute Motion 2006-
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee will be
adjourned to a Special Meeting to be held on December 14, 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 regularly scheduled Meeting of Wednesday, December 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, December 1, 2006.
DATED: December 1, 2006
BETT WYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\A LRC\Agenda.doc
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A Special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 18, 2006 10:00 a.m.
M, MICOX6301am
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: Frank Christopher and Tracy Smith. It
was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Smith
to excuse Committee Member Bobbitt. Unanimously approved
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa, Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary
Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
111. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Christopher/Smith to approve the Minutes of September 20, 2006 as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2006-876; a request of Trans West Housing
for consideration of landscaping for typical residential units in Griffin
Ranch located south of Avenue 54, east of Madison Street, north of
Greg Norman Course, and west of Monroe Street.
Associate Planner Andy Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Marty
Butler and Jerry Herman of Trans West Housing, and landscape
architect Chuck Shephardson who gave a presentation on the
project.
r \%A/Pnnrq�Al Pr\ln-lR-AR nnr
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
October 18, 2006
2. Committee Member Christopher explained the City's reasoning
for wanting to see less turf. Mr. Shephardson stated their
reasons for the landscape designs they were presenting were to
retain control on the streetscape. They will have turf -less front
yards.
3. Committee Member Smith asked if they could have a complete
turf backyard. Ms. Butler stated they will have to submit any
rear landscaping plans as well to the architectural review board.
4. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Smith/Christopher to adopt Minute
Motion 2006-031 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2006-876, as recommended with the deletion of
Condition No. 1. Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2006-872; a request of Trans West Housing
for consideration of landscaping plans for a proposed Clubhouse in
Griffin Ranch located south of Avenue 54, east of Madison Street,
north of Greg Norman Course, and west of Monroe Street.
1 Associate Planner Andy Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Marty
Butler and Jerry Herman of Trans West Housing, Chuck
Shephardson landscape architect and Phillip Pekarek architect.
Mr. Herman asked for the flexibility of concrete roof tiles with
the variety of colors. The custom homes will have more clay
and will be boosted.
2. Committee Member Christopher stated it is one of the best
architecturally designed buildings and has no objections. Mr.
Pekarek stated they have used the concrete tile on most
buildings they are currently building due to the maintenance
problem they have with the clay breaking. Committee Member
Christopher asked where the accent clay tile would be used.
Mr. Pekarek indicated the location on the site plan.
3. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Christopher/Smith to adopt Minute
Motion 2006-032 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2006-876, as recommended but allowing the applicant
the six color mix with concrete tile, as used in the residential
development. Unanimously approved.
r M/Pnnrq�ai Pr\1n_1A_nA nnr 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
October 18, 2006
C. Site Development Permit 2006-870; a request of Craftsmen Homes
for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three
prototypical residential plans for use in Tract 32751 located on the
south side of Pomelo, and west of Jefferson Street in The Citrus.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Scott
Shaddix of Craftsman Homes, Keven Latel architect for the
project, and Ron Gregory landscape architect.
2. Committee Member Christopher asked if the non -turf option
was removed because the HOA would not allow it. Mr.
Shaddix stated they approached the HOA and took it to CVWD
for approval to keep the turf. Committee Member Christopher
asked the reasoning behind the wall requirement. Staff stated
there was originally a tunnel that crossed over to the east side
of Jefferson Street. It is now closed and a popout wall was
allowed at that time. Staff determined the wall should be
straight with a 20 foot setback. It is now the consensus of
everyone that the wall should be straightened out. Planning
Manager Les Johnson clarified it is to allow the 20 foot
setback. Mr. Shaddix stated this is part of the retention area
for the entire community. The purpose of maintaining the wall
as it is would be to allow the volume they need.
3. Committee Member Smith asked why we changed our retention
basins from grass to decomposed granite (DG). They are now
becoming contaminated retention basins. Staff stated we have
seen turf and no turf submitted and it is a maintenance issue
with either grass or DG. The City's position has been on the
side of irrigation. Committee Member Smith asked if it will be
used for any type of recreational uses. Mr. Shaddix stated it
will be an open space, but not open to the public. Staff noted it
is fenced off and gated. Mr. Gregory stated that in regard to
maintenance, they will look into some means to make it easier
to maintain. Committee Member Smith noted that grass is the
easiest method.
4. Committee Member Christopher agreed with the design of the
house plans.
r �%AlPnnr��Al Pr\1n_1R_nA nnr 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
October 18, 2006
5. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Christopher/Smith to adopt Minute
Motion 2006-033 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2006-870, as recommended. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Smith/Bobbitt to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 1,
2006. This meeting was adjourned at 10:44 a.m. on October 18, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER
Executive Secretary
r �%Alpnnrq�Li pr�in-ip-ng nnr 4
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2006
CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-035, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC
REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS FOR AVENUES 52, 54
AND MONROE STREET PERIMETERS AROUND THE MADISON
CLUB
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 52 AND EAST OF MADISON STREET
BACKGROUND:
The Madison Club site is located on the east side of Madison Street, between Avenue
52 and Avenue 54. The Madison Club design was approved by the City Council in
2004 as an Amendment to Specific Plan 99-035 and approval of Tentative Tract Map
33076, with construction of a few club buildings and the golf course completed, and
infrastructure improvements underway.
The July 2006 Planning Commission review of the Avenue 52 perimeter planting and
walls plans, approved the general concept for use around the other public street
perimeters and required the final perimeter planting plans be reviewed by the ALRC
with final approval by the Community Development Director.
The approval also required Madison Streets preliminary planting plans be reviewed by
the ALRC and approved by the Planning Commission. That approval occurred on
October 10, 2006 (Attachment 1). During that review there was some concern raised
regarding the plans. One Commissioner questioned whether there was a planting
design theme, an overabundance of planting material, and voiced concern over the
view corridors. A second Commissioner also stated the planting quantities were more
than necessary for the project. However, no conditions were imposed to address
these concerns.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted final perimeter planting and irrigation plans for Avenue 52,
54, Monroe Street, and Madison Street (Attachment 2). As required by the July 2006
approval of the preliminary Avenue 52 planting, the other streets utilize the same
planting concepts, materials and style.
As noted above, the Madison Street perimeter plans were reviewed and approved by
the ALRC and Planning Commission in October 2006. Technically, the Avenue 52 and
Madison Street plans do not require this review since they both were previously
reviewed by the ALRC. However, because they are a part of this set of final plans
they are included for your information.
In general, shrubs of the same type are massed with larger species to the rear and
accent plants and groundcovers in the front closer to the street. Trees are also
massed by variety in a manner that will result in fairly dense cover. As required
"view" corridors or areas where trees are not planted are provided along all streets.
Tree sizes vary from 36" to 120" box size. Palm tree heights vary up to approximately
20-foot brown trunk height. Shrubs are five or 15 gallons in size. Groundcovers are
primarily one gallon size with some five gallon plants used.
ALRC DISCUSSION ITEMS:
The final planting and irrigation plans comply with applicable requirements and the
concept approved for Avenue 52 for the perimeter treatment and view corridors
throughout the project. There is a very short portion of frontage along Avenue 53 just
west of Monroe Street that is not included in these plans and will need to be reviewed
and approved separately.
Along Monroe Street mountain views from the street or the east are generally to the
south and west. In order to ensure "view corridors" are adequate, staff recommends
the two corridors on Monroe Street that are under 1 00-feet wide, be a minimum 100-
feet wide.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plans to the Community Development Director,
subject to the following conditions:
1 The Avenue 53 perimeter, just west of Monroe Street, that is not included in
these irrigation and planting plans, shall be reviewed and approved by the ALRC
and Community Development Director.
2. The "view corridors" shall be a minimum 1 00-feet wide along Monroe Street.
Attachments:
1 . Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2006
2. Final planting and irrigation plans for Avenues 52, 54, Monroe Street, and
Madison Street
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT #1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2006
2. \here being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
C I missioner Daniels/Engle to continue the project to October 24,
200 , as requested by the applicant. Unanimously approved.
0 IF
B. Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #1; a request of East of Madison, LLC
for consideration of landscaping and wall plans for the Madison Street
perimeter of The Madison Club, for the property located on the east side
of Madison Street between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54.
1 Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. 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. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there was an entrance off Madison
Street. Staff stated they did not believe so, but the applicant
would need to answer that question.
3. Commissioner Barrows asked where the water conservation sheet
was located as it was noted, but not included in her packet. She
also questioned the use of white fountain grass as there was a
potential species that was invasive and she would like it to be
stricken from the list. Community Development Director stated
staff would make an inspection to ensure the white fountain grass
was not used.
4. Commissioner Alderson asked if the multi -purpose trail was
included. Staff stated it was.
5. Chairman Quill asked what type of fencing material was proposed.
Staff stated it will be what the City requires. Chairman Quill noted
there were several shrubs noted on the planting sheet, but the
locations are not identified. The legend does not reflect what is on
the planting plan.
6. Commissioner Daniels asked if anyone has read the general
provisions because on the ones given to the Commission are too
small to read. Staff stated they are standard provisions.
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John
Gamlin, representing East of Madison, gave a presentation on the
2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2006
project and stated they concurred with staff's recommendation
and the conditions. In regard to the wall it will be located below
the top of the berm as required. They have no problem to
adhering to the City's standard in regard to the material. They
would like to upgrade the material to use wood and not pvc.
There will be no vehicular access off of Madison Street except for
emergency access. In regard to the fountain grass they are wiling
to use a different material. Concerning the discrepancy between
the legend and the palette he is unable to answer their question.
8. Commissioner Daniels asked if the plant palette would be similar
on both sides of Madison Street. Mr. Gamlin stated there will be
some differences.
9. Commissioner Barrows questioned whether there was a theme to
the plant materials. Mr. Gamlin stated characteristically the
planting is very flowing and carefully conceived. Without looking
at the full scale it is hard to see this. Planning Manager Les
Johnson stated his concurrence.
10. Chairman Quill questioned whether or not the wall would meander.
It is at the same relation to the curb for the first section. There
appears to be very little movement in the first 20 feet. Mr. Gamlin
stated that was correct, but it would be meandering. Chairman
Quill stated he would recommend they use the concrete split rail
fencing material similar to what was being used on the Griffin
Ranch project. Mr. Gamlin agreed. Chairman Quill stated that
along Avenue 54 the header boards are failing. He suggested a
concrete header or something that would hold up be used. Mr.
Gamlin stated the Public Works Department has changed their
standard to address this issue. Chairman Quill asked if they would
even consider using a wall that could be seen through. Madison
Street is developing a very claustrophobic feeling because of the
berm itself. Mr. Gamlin stated that if they were to use concrete
and wrought iron they would want to use vines on the wrought
iron. The desire of the property owners is to have the seclusion to
not be seen. Chairman Quill asked about the wall treatment. Mr.
Gamlin explained the articulation and where it would be located.
11. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2006
12. Commissioner Daniels stated he has no problem with the deletion
of the purple fountain grass.
13. Commissioner Alderson stated he too believes it will be a beautiful
development.
14. Commissioner Barrows stated she appreciates the applicant's
cooperation to work with staff to resolve a lot of the
Commission's issues. She does believe the landscaping lacks a
theme and she has a concern about the amount of planting
material and the view corridors.
15. Chairman Quill stated he too believes the planting is an over -kill.
As he drives Madison Street south there are places where you
cannot even see the mountains due to the berms. He believes it
was a mistake to allow the berms and does not believe it makes
for a good community from the outside. He would agree with the
upgraded fencing material for the multi -purpose trail fence.
16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Alderson/Engle to adopt Minute Motion 2006-025
approving Specific Plan 99-035, Amendment #11, as recommended
and amended:
a. Condition added: Equestrian fencing shall be of a concrete
material to the satisfaction of the City.
b. Condition added: All mow strips shall be concrete.
C. Condition added: No white (reseeding) fountain grass shall
be used
Motioned carried with Commissioner Barrows voting No
C. Riqft-of-Wav Vacation 2006-015; a request of Nispero Properties, Inc.
for a port of finding under California Government Code Section 65402
t t g
ha In proposed right-of-way vacation of a 6,682 square foot portion of
Cal Ba celona is consistent with the General Plan.
1 C a' man u opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
repor Development Services Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer
pres\end the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
is
which is n file in the Community Development Department.
2
AFF-w
OF
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2006
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-865
APPLICANT: CNL DESERT RESORTS, L.P.
CONSULTANT: EDSA
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR SIGNATURE POOL FACILITY
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, SOUTH OF AVENIDA
OBREGON IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT
BACKGROUND:
The project site is within a portion of the Tennis Club and main pool area at the La
Quinta Resort. The proposal is to remove some of the existing facilities, including ten
tennis courts (including the modern -era sunken tennis court), existing pools next to
Morgan house, and several small modern -era buildings. Proposed in this area is a
water park type facility which is primarily hoped to increase summer occupancy. The
existing restaurant will be retained and added onto for project use.
The proposed project fronts on Avenida Obregon just south of Avenida Fernando.
Avenida Obregon was once a public street prior to construction of the Resort. It is
now a private drive within the Resort. It will be retained in its location and street
section design, except at Avenida Fernando where it will be widened to provide for
future security gates and a turnaround, should it be needed after the water park facility
is constructed.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Proposed is a water -oriented facility which includes a wave pool, circular lazy river,
three water slides that start on a 28-foot high artificial rock feature and splash down
into a pool, a formal spa, swimming and toddler pools, an interactive fountain, a large
screen for night movie watching from the wave pool, game room, cabanas, lounging
areas and seating.
Construction of new traditional above ground structures is somewhat limited. Two
small entry buildings, one on each side of the park entry on Avenida Obregon, will be
constructed and an addition will be added adjacent to the rear of the existing
restaurant building on the rear side for a game room and first aid station with a
basement for the formal pool equipment.
The buildings are designed in an early California architectural style in keeping with the
La Quinta Resort. Materials and colors will match those used on the existing buildings
and be smooth white plaster with red clay tile roofing.
The remaining structures consist primarily of trellises and cabanas. The trellises will be
constructed of wood (minimum 2"x6") and supported by concrete columns or attached
to buildings. They will be spread out throughout the site or attached to the existing
tennis and restaurant buildings. The cabanas will be plaster -finished walls and wood
construction fitted with canvas flaps opening on the fronts. These ten cabanas will be
constructed around the formal swimming pool.
The Morgan house, which is a City -designated historic structure, located near the
northeast corner of the site is to be retained in place, but will be fenced off and not
used due to its non-compliance with current earthquake standards.
Paving surfaces in public areas will either be decorative paving or colored concrete.
Landscaping plans show an extensive use of trees and shrubs with an emphasis on
color. Planting material are to a great extent low water use plants. Specific treetypes
and locations are shown with sizes varying from 24-inch to 48-inch box size. One of
the main trees to be used throughout the site is 1 5-foot high (clear trunk height) Date
Palm trees. There will be 1 5-foot to 25-foot (clear trunk height) California Fan Palm
trees used extensively.
Shrub planting species lists are given without reference to sizes for some shrubs. The
plans do show specific locations for the various shrubs and ground covers. No use of
turf is indicated on the plans.
As a part of the project, two artificial rock features will be constructed at the west end
of the site. The larger of the two will be the southern most rock feature at 28-feet
high above finish grade. It will house three water slides that empty into a large pool
on the east side. The second 1 8.5-foot high rock feature will house the wave making
and movie projector equipment. The wave pool will be to the east of this rock feature.
Movies will be projected towards the pool. The exterior of the rock features will be
colored sculpted gunite to mimic the nearby mountains. Trees and shrubs will be
interspersed at various elevations on the rock features.
Fencing around the site is proposed to include a 6-foot high metal picket fence around
most of the perimeter, with the exception of between the entry building and the north
boundary. The existing stucco wall will be retained along that portion of the boundary.
In some areas near the southeast corner of the site, the metal picket fences will
connect to new or existing buildings to enclose the site.
ALRC DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Architecturally, the small structures proposed to be built as a part of this project are
acceptable and will be compatible with the existing buildings. Wood is proposed to be
used in the construction of the trellis and cabanas. The use of wood for these types
of structures is in keeping with the resorts character. Normally, staff would suggest
the use of wood embossed metal or a composite material. However, wood should be
permitted for this construction to maintain the resorts character and because they have
been able to maintain wood used in other parts of the resort.
The landscaping appears to be designed to create a lush but relatively water efficient
project. As noted earlier, the use of Date Palm trees may want to be reviewed. In the
past these trees have been only allowed if the trees were not too old to be
successfully transplanted. There are a few proposed shrubs that traditionally don't do
well in the summers but may be acceptable if planted in appropriately protected areas.
Based on the submitted plans the appearance of the rock features from an architectural
and landscaping perspective will be acceptable.
The final landscape working drawings need to submitted to the ALRC for final
approval. This will allow a thorough review of the landscape design. The final design
of the plans may need to be revised if this project is approved and revisions are
required by the Planning Commission or City Council.
Staff is waiting for submittal of a noise study for this project. That study may
necessitate sound walls in some areas adjacent to existing residences instead of the
proposed picket fence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the development plans and if acceptable, recommend to the Planning
Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2006-865, subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
1 A Community Development Department application for Final Landscape Plan
Check shall be submitted for final landscaping plans and reviewed by the ALRC
per the Code and application requirements with final approval by the Community
Development Director.
2. An inert groundcover shall be provided in all shrub planter area.
3. "Mountain" structures shall mimic color and appearance of surrounding
mountains to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
4. All non -mountain features (i.e. railings, doors, utility boxes, stairs, etc.) shall be
painted, stained, coated, etc., the same color as the adjacent artificial
mountains.
Attachment:
1 . Architectural and landscaping plans
Prepared by:
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner
0-
B1 #C
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 6, 2006
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-874
KOMAR INVESTMENTS L.L.C.
SPGA ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
PETER BRANDOW AND ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR SEVEN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 AT DEPOT DRIVE
The project site is located south of Highway 111 and Depot Drive in the City of La
Quinta (Attachment 1). The proposed Komar Desert Center is bounded on the north by
Highway 111. The proposed buildings are north of the Costco Wholesale, which
recently opened. The Komar Desert Center Specific Plan 2005-075 was approved by
the City Council on January 3, 2006. These buildings are the second phase of this
commercial development and the proposed uses are allowed. The Specific Plan allows
83,700 square feet maximum, within three building envelope areas.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Architectural Plans
Proposed are seven commercial buildings (consisting of approximately 67,000 square
feet) in a desert modern architectural style using primarily stucco, split -faced and
precision CMU materials. The proposed buildings are highlighted by special architectural
features such as an entry rotunda and metal architectural roof elements, extensive use
of canopies and trellises for shade, and large format graphic art panel to articulate the
facades. In ten locations, perforated color metal panels are proposed to allow tenant
signs; the sizes of the proposed sign areas identified on the plans may exceed Zoning
Code requirements and require a sign program to be approved by the Planning
Commission at a later date. The sign areas noted on the plans are not a part this review.
Proposed building colors are dark and reddish browns and grey tones. A material and
color sample board will be available at the meeting,
P:\Reports-ALRC\2006\12-6-06\SDP2006-874 Komar.doc
BUILDING "A"
Building "A", with a gross floor area of approximately 20,050 square feet and measures
approximately 1 38-feet by 143-feet, proposes a 33-feet high rotunda element at the
northwest corner in a feature color, identified as the main entry. The height of the
primary parapet walls varies, but is generally 26-feet high. The building will be
constructed of reinforced concrete masonry walls, with an engineered wood structural
roof system. The primary exterior shell materials are stucco with feature walls of
alternating split -faced and precision faced CMU. There are feature panels of perforated
metal attached to a painted metal frame, which are cantilevered approximately 24-
inches from the primary face of the building and rise 2'-8" above the parapet height.
The front, rear and sides of the building use layering of walls, materials and colors, as
well as large -format graphic art panels to articulate the facades. The panels that are on
the exhibits are place holders since the City will need to approve the final proposal as
"Art in Public Places" by the Community Services Commission and the City Council or
as graphics acceptable to the this Committee and the Planning Commission. A
proposed stucco wall screens the loading area, with cutouts for vine pockets and
landscape trees.
Gross square footage: 20,050 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 138' x 143'
Primary parapet height: 2 W-0 "
Highest point: 33'-0" (at rotunda)
Exterior materials: Stucco, split -faced and precision CMU
Construction type: Reinforced CMU with wood roof framing
Special features: Rotunda entry element, striated CMU feature walls,
large-scale graphic art panels.
BUILDING "B"
Building "B", with a gross floor area of approximately 5,630 square feet and measures
approximately 60-feet by 93-feet proposes a height of 1 7-feet. Proposed are primary
stucco parapet wall at the front (west elevation) with a metal standing seam mansard
roof at 23-feet in height. At the rear (east elevation) the stucco parapet wall is 22-feet
high. The building will be constructed using wood framing. The primary exterior
materials are stucco and a dark bronze standing seam mansard roof. On the parking lot
side, there is an extended shade trellis that extends approximately 13'-6" from the face
of the building, which has perforated metal screens, secured to a painted metal frame.
The trellis is supported by a row of stone -veneer columns. Pin -mounted, individually
lettered tenant signs will be affixed to the top edge of the trellis, at the parking lot
edge.
Gross square footage: 5,630 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 60' x 93'
Primary parapet height: 17'-0 " (west) 2 2'-0 " (east)
Highest point: 23'-0" (mansard roof)
Exterior materials: Stucco, standing seam metal roof, stone veneer
PAReports - ALRC\2006\1 2-6-06\SDP 2006-874 Komar.doc
Construction type: Wood frame
Special features: Deep shade trellis at west elevation
BUILDING "C"
Building "C", with a gross floor area of approximately 6,900 square feet and measures
approximately 60-feet by 11 6-feet. The proposed height of the primary stucco parapet
wall at the west elevation is 24'-6" and 23-feet at the north. The primary corner is
marked by a rooftop feature element- a horizontal, painted rectangular steel frame with
perforated metal infill panels, hovering above the corner tower. The top of this element
is at 28-feet. This corner features proposes to add shade an outdoor terrace area,
approximately 27-feet x 38-feet, which is defined by stone columns, stone seat walls,
and shade canopies above.
The proposed building will be constructed using wood framing. The primary exterior
building materials are stucco, with feature walls of stone veneer and panels of anodized
aluminum storefront windows. At the west elevation, there is an extended shade
trellis connected to the one shading Building B. At the north side, shade canopies
extend approximately 6'-0" from the face of the building, at each section of storefront
window. They have perforated metal screen, secured to a painted metal frame, and are
suspended from the building face by steel tension rods. This shade canopy
construction is typical throughout the center
Gross square footage: 6,900 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 116' x 60'
Primary parapet height: 24'-6" (west) 23'-0" (north)
Highest point: 28'-0" (at perforated metal canopy)
Exterior materials: Stucco, aluminum storefront, stone veneer
Construction type: Wood frame
Special features: Deep shade trellis at west elevation, shade canopies
at each storefront, corner tower with perforated
metal roof, shaded dining terrace.
BUILDING "D"
Building "D", with a gross floor area of approximately 6,570 square feet and measures
approximately 58-feet by 1 24-feet. The proposed height of the primary stucco parapet
wall at the west is 1 7-feet, with a metal standing seam mansard roof rising to 23-feet.
Parapets heights vary between 23-feet and 27-feet. The primary corner near Highway
111 is marked by a rooftop feature element- a curving, painted steel frame with
perforated metal infill panels, hovering above a corner tower. The high point of this
element is proposed at 30'-6f. At the parking lot side, there is an extended shade
trellis that extends approximately 13'-6" from the face of the building, which has
perforated metal screens, secured to a painted metal frame. In plan view, this building
features two shaded, outdoor terrace areas, which is defined by stone columns, stone
seat walls, and shade canopies above. There is a cylindrical tower that anchors the
north east corner of the building. The north and east facades propose deeply set
PAReports - ALRC\2006\1 2-6-06\SDP 2006-874 Komar.doc
windows and a series of insets in plan, which articulate the scale and add interest.
Proposed are landscape berming, and landscape screen walls around the drive -through
window, to screen views of queuing cars from pedestrians and passing vehicles.
The building will be constructed using wood framing. The primary exterior materials
proposed are stucco, with multiple colors defining different building volumes, and
feature walls of stone veneer. At the north side, shade canopies extend approximately
6'-0" from the face of the building, at each section of storefront window.
Gross square footage: 6,570 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 124' x 58'
Primary parapet height: 24'-0" (east, south), 18'-0" (west), 23'-0" (west
mansard), 22'-8" (north)
Highest point: 30'-6" (at top of arc of perforated metal canopy)
Exterior materials: Stucco, aluminum storefront, stone veneer
Construction type: Wood frame
Special features: Deep shade trellis at west elevation, shade canopies
at each storefront, corner tower with curving,
perforated metal roof, shaded dining terrace, corner
cylinder.
BUILDING "E"
Building "E", with a gross floor area of approximately 10,106 square feet and measures
approximately 85-feet by 11 8-feet proposes a height for the primary parapet walls at
the west elevation at 20'-8", with articulated corner parapets between 24-feet and 28-
feet high. The primary corner at the southeast is marked by a curving roof feature
element (see Building "D"). The high point of this element is at 29'-6". Proposed is a
feature signage panel of perforated metal attached to a painted metal frame, at the
northeast corner, which is cantilevered approximately 24-inches from the primary face
of the building and rises one foot above the parapet height. In plan view, this building
proposes an outdoor terrace area, at the northeast corner, which is defined by stone
columns, stone seat walls and a shade tree. There is extensive planting at the south
and west facades for shading and scale and large -format City -approved graphic art
panels on the east facade.
The building will be constructed using wood framing. The primary exterior materials
proposed are stucco, with multiple colors defining different building volumes, and
panels of stone veneer. Each section of storefront window has the typical shade
canopy.
Gross square footage: 10, 106 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 118' x 85'
Primary parapet height: 20'-8" (east, west, south, north)
Highest point: 29'-6" (at top of arc of perforated metal canopy)
Exterior materials: Stucco, aluminum storefront, manufactured stone veneer
Construction type: Wood frame
P:\Reports-ALRC\2006\12-6-06NSDP2006-874 Komar.doc
Special features: Shade canopies at each storefront, corner tower
with curving, perforated metal roof, dining terrace,
graphic art panels
BUILDING "F"
Building "I"', with a gross floor area of approximately 6,750 square feet and measures
approximately 63-feet by 111 -feet proposes a height of the primary parapet wall at the
west and south elevations at 23-feet, at the east elevation at 25-feet, and at the north
elevation at 24-feet. Articulated corner parapets are proposed between 24-feet and 25-
feet in height. Proposed at the northeast corner is a signage panel of perforated metal
attached to a painted metal frame, which is cantilevered approximately 24-inches from
the primary face of the building and which rises one above the parapet height. In plan
view, the proposed building outdoor terrace areas, at the northeast and southeast
corners, which are defined by stone seat walls and shade trees. There is extensive
planting at the south and west facades for shading and scale. The rear of the building
uses steps in plan view and large-scale City approved graphic art panels to help
articulate the facade.
The building will be constructed using wood framing. The primary exterior materials
proposed are stucco, with multiple colors defining different building volumes, and
panels of stone veneer and stone veneer -covered landscape walls. Each section of
storefront window has a typical shade canopy.
Gross square footage: 6,750 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 63' x 111'
Primary parapet height: 23'-0" (west, south), 25'-0" (east), 24'-0" (north)
Highest point: 26'-0" (at top of perforated metal signage canopy)
Exterior materials: Stucco, aluminum storefront, manufactured stone
veneer
Construction type: Wood frame
Special features: Shade canopies at each storefront, outdoor
terraces, large-scale graphic art panels.
BUILDING "H"
Building "H", with a gross floor area of approximately 10,700 square feet and measures
approximately 78-feet by 145-feet. Proposes parapet wall at the north elevation are
22-feet in height, at the east and west elevations at 20'-8" and at the south elevation
at 22-feet. Proposed are articulated corner parapets between 22'-8" and 24-feet in
height. The northeast corner of the building is marked by a rooftop feature element
similar to the one at Building "C". There is extensive planting at the south and west
facades for shading and scale. The rear of the building proposes large -format graphic
art panels (to be approved by the City) to articulate the facade, and a base of
alternating split faced and precision CMU.
P:\Reports-ALRC\2006\12-6-06\SDP2006-874 Komar.doc
The building will be constructed using wood framing. The primary exterior materials
proposed are stucco, with multiple colors defining different building volumes, and
feature panels of stone veneer and anodized aluminum storefront. Each section of
storefront window has the typical shade canopy.
Gross square footage: 10,700 square feet
Approximate dimensions: 78' x 145'
Primary parapet height: 23'-0" (west, south), 25'-0" (east), 24'-0" (north)
Highest point: 28'-0" (at top of perforated metal canopy)
Exterior materials: Stucco, aluminum storefront, stone veneer
Construction type: Wood frame
Special features: Shade canopies at each storefront, extended
hardscape at the northeast corner, large-scale
photographic panels.
Landscape Plan
Proposed landscaping for these buildings consist of landscape planters along the
driveways and in the parking lots. Highway 111 landscaping was completed with the
opening of Costco Wholesale. Proposed trees are Desert Museum (36" box), Sunburst
Locust, (24" and 36" box), Texas Mesquite (24" box), and Mexican Fan Palms dispersed
throughout the site. Proposed scrubs include Red Bird of Paradise, Red Yucca, Texas
Ranger, Baja Ruellia, Euonymus, Cassia, and Purple Mexican Bush Sage. The applicant
has selected plants types for this portion of the commercial center from a larger palette
of materials consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
Behind the screen wall for the drive through and within the Highway 111 landscape
setback, the applicant proposes to build up the mounding to within a foot of the top of
the screen wall and add additional scrubs and trees to hide the view of vehicles in the
drive through lane.
ALRC DISCUSSION ITEMS:
The project as presented is designed well, consistent with the Specific Plan, and
complies with applicable zoning requirements. Staff has the following concerns:
1 The graphic art panels are an important element to the building design. The
panels are proposed to embellish blank and flat stuccoed walls. The City needs to
determine, when submitted, if the final art/graphic proposal, at these locations,
are appropriate for the Art in Public Places program and integral to the building
design or it may be determined that the graphic panel designs are not public art.
If not public art, then the applicant will produce proposed graphics panels as an
architectural enhancement. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval that
requires the applicant to bring the graphic panels back to the ALRC and
Planning Commission for approval, to determine if the final graphic panel
proposal is compatible with the building and site design; no advertising or
product representation will be allowed.
P:\Reports-ALRC\2006\12-6-06\SDP2006-874 Komar.doc
2. Building "A" proposes a loading dock with a screen wall and landscaping facing
east adjacent to the secondary driveway into the commercial center. The access
and orientation into the loading dock conflicts with the secondary driveway
which provides access from Highway 111 for the entire center. In addition, at
the south end of the lading dock, a main east -west drive lane for the parking lot
creates another conflict for moving vehicles and any loading and unloading
activity. Staff recommends that the loading dock and building orientation be re-
designed to eliminate the conflict with this activity and vehicular traffic. The
elevation does not show a gate for the loading dock (although the site plan
indicates a gate); a stylized gate needs to be added to the loading dock elevation.
A roof element over the loading area may help contain and cast a shadow line on
the cluttered activity that will take place behind this building. In addition,
Building A is proposed to have a CMU finish on portions of the south elevation;
the design of these portions of south elevation need to be upgraded with the use
of additional materials such as awnings, trellises, and stacked stone.
3. Building "D" proposes a drive -through with a screen wall along Highway 111 and
turns south parallel to the secondary driveway into the commercial center. The
proposed screen wall needs to be extended further south to screen the entire
drive through lane and transformer units located in the landscape planter area. In
addition, the screen wall for the entire length of the drive through lane needs to
have a minimum 3 foot separation behind the drive lane curb; the three foot area
needs to be landscaped. The east elevation (rear) of Building D is proposed to
have only a plaster finish; the design of this elevation needs to be upgraded with
the use of additional materials such as awnings, trellises, and stacked stone.
4. Building "E" and "F", along the eastern portion of the main entrance drive aisle,
face the internal parking lot and have the back end of the building close to the
main driveway. Staff recommends screen walls and additional tress be placed
along these elements to soften the building wall line along the west elevations.
5. Building "H" is proposed to have only a plaster finishes on the south elevation;
the design of this elevation needs to be upgraded. In addition the south elevation
(back of building) needs to be screened. Staff recommends screen walls and
additional tress be placed along these elements to soften the building wall line
along the west elevation and upgrade the south elevation with the use of
additional materials such as awnings, trellises, and stacked stone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of architectural and landscape plans
for Site Development Permit 2006-874, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall bring the graphic panels back to the ALRC and Planning
Commission for approval if it is determined that the graphic panels are not
acceptable as public art. The ALRC and Planning Commission shall determine if
the final graphic proposal is compatible with the building and site designs; no
PAReports - ALRC\2006\1 2-6-06\SDP 2006-874 Komar.doc
advertising or product representation will be allowed.
2. The applicant shall extend the proposed screen wall for Building "D" further
south to the entire length of the drive through lane and the transformer units
located in the landscape planter area. In addition, the screen wall, for the entire
length of the drive through lane, needs to have a minimum 3 foot separation
behind the drive lane curb consisting of a landscaped area.
3. The applicant shall redesign the loading dock and building orientation of Building
"A" to eliminate the conflict with vehicle traffic at driveways.
4. The applicant shall upgrade the design with the use of additional materials such
as awnings, trellises, and stacked stone for the following elevations:
South elevation of Building "A"
East elevation of Building "D"
South elevation of Building "H"
5. The applicant shall provide five foot screen walls designed to be compatible with
the associated buildings and with landscaping taller than the screen wall to
soften the building fascia along the following building elevations:
South elevation of Building "A"
East elevation of Building "D"
East elevation of Building "E"
East elevation of Building "F"
South elevation of Building "H"
6. All mechanical equipment on roof tops shall be screened from view by parapet
walls; this includes air conditioning units and fans and blower hoods for food
service cooking.
Transmitted by:
C-7red �Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Plan Exhibits
P:\Reports - ALRC\2006\1 2-6-06\SDP 2006-874 Komar.doc
ATTACHMENT #1
PROJ
MGHWAY -111
ECT Lo.CATIONI.,
Ila
7"o
---
----- ----
AVENUE48
PROJECT LOCATION MAP