Loading...
2007 07 11 ALRCr= v DD ysC�1Y �^9WSW �OF1 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Rescheduled Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall — South Conference Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California JULY 11, 2007 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2007-019 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 June 27, 2007. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ........................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863 Applicant ................ Innovative Communities Location .................. North side of avenue 58 approximately 1,000 feet west of Madison Street Request .................. Consideration of final street perimeter landscaping plans for Tract 34243 (Paso Tiempo) Action .................... Minute Motion 2007- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE VII. 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 August 1, 2007 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 Rescheduled Meeting of Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 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 1 1 1, on Friday, July 6, 2007. DATED: July 6, 2007 BET WYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California 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 June 27, 2007 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This special meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Planning Director 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 Christopher C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to approve the minutes of June 6, 2007 as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-891, a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 104,175 square foot department store (JC Penney), located south of Auto Centre Drive and east of Adams Street. 1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff introduced Chris Clark, Russ Beckner, Mark Moran, John Pena, Rick Zeilinga, representing Stamko Development, and Chuck Shepardson HSA Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27, 2007 Design, and Mark Levine, Nudell Architects, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Ms. Clark stated she agrees to Condition Nos. 8 and 9. In regard to Condition No. 4 they are not able to add any trees due to the location of the retention basin. They have added landscaping in other areas. This design has been modeled after what was constructed on the Wal-Mart site. It is not a consistent line of trees. The site has a good record of landscaping and The Auto Centre has won awards. 3. Committee Member Smith asked if the light standards will be the same as Wal-Mart. Ms. Clark stated yes, they will be the same. Across the well site they are 24 feet and will have visors to allow downlighting. Committee Member Smith stated the area in the Wal-Mart parking lot that does not have trees is the areas around the light poles. That is not the case here. Why are there gaps in this proposed parking lot? Mr. Shepardson stated adjustments can be made to make them equal. The photometric design for the lights goes first and the landscaping can be adjusted to meet this. Committee Member Smith stated it would look better to have them evenly distributed. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the underground retention basins in the middle of the parking lot. Ms. Clark stated the east side retention could affect the landscaping and lighting. They have been able to add more landscaping by having the underground retention in the drive aisles. On the north side (Condition #9), there is no landscaping because of the underground retention and they are recommending the trellis. All the landscaping for the entire site is being proposed to be done at one time. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it appears trees were missed. Mr. Shepardson stated they would rearrange the tree layout to make it more consistent. The design before them was drawn by the engineers. 6. Ms. Clark stated she accepts Condition No. 6. In regard to Condition No. 5, the wall adjacent to the loading dock, the south wall on the loading dock up against the residential property is 26 feet high. The wall that runs north -south is eight feet high. There is a well site in this location that is yet to be 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27. 2007 built. She does not know the height of the well site wall that will have landscaping added to the wall. Adams Street is several feet lower. She does not understand staff's recommendation for a ten foot wall. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the line of site height was along Adams Street. Staff stated the interest is in the visibility of vehicles in the loading dock, due to the view out towards Adams Street being at the highest point of the loading area. It is a mechanism to shield the direct view of vehicles in the loading dock by adding two feet to the wall. 8. Committee Member Smith asked if a wall was proposed along the stormwater area. Staff stated the entire well site wall will be eight feet. Ms. Clark stated this area has a 20 foot setback and has landscaping at the 12 foot right-of-way plus their additional landscaping at the top. She does not believe the wall will be seen by anyone driving by. 9. Committee Member Smith asked what difference there would be between an eight or ten foot wall. Staff stated the interest is at the north end as it is proposed to be a recessed ramp. Committee Member Smith stated it is recessed. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he does not see it as an issue. People driving by should not even see it. His concerns are the elevations and the close proximity of the building to the residential to the south. 11. Committee Member Smith asked about the traffic circulation of the site. Discussion followed regarding the circulation of the interior streets. 12. Mr. Mark Levin, Nudell Architects, went over the architectural design features. In regard to Condition No. 1, or the north elevation, the architect discussed the red panel square with the JC Penney signage, as an overall design of the building. JC Penney has done extensive research on a branding for their identity, and the economics of their brand design. This logo is reflected on all their new buildings. As far as the main elevation and the articulation of the glass, stone, canopies, etc., the intent is to break up the main elevation and significantly emphasize the main entry and reinforce the brand identity. The 01 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27, 2007 accent and dramatic of the red is for that purpose. The glass is a combination of spando and vision glass; a departure from their design to reinforce their redeveloped design to contemporarize themselves against their competitors. The tower is a very definitive element of all JC Penney's buildings. The minor issue regarding the canopy and the depth of the horizontal element at the edge and further along the two lines that follow the glass can be resolved. The horizontal element has a two foot setback. The canopy projects out eight feet which makes a ten foot depth. It is a north elevation and will not get the direct sunlight. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the relationship to the curb. Mr. Levin stated the red bollards are in front of the canopy. The overhang of the canopy face is approximately two feet from the curb. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why it did not run all the way to the end of the building. Mr. Levin stated it was to keep the more modern look. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff wanted more shade or what were they trying to achieve with their recommendation. Staff stated the plans did not identify the depth and what they wanted was shade along the entire length of the glass. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the banding is not completely banding, but has the spanding for partial protection. Ms. Clark stated the canopy is covering the amount of the sidewalk in front of the building. Staff stated that if it covers the entire length of the sidewalk staff has no issue, but pointed out the canopy only partially covers the entire length of the front windows. 14. Committee Member Smith asked the material of the canopy. Mr. Levin stated it is metal. 15. Ms. Clark noted the red steel accent at the end of the building is a separate entry which is a separate business and that is why it is identified. It is similar but at a different scale. The entire site is not the typical desert theme. This is a much more modern theme. Each of the buildings have different colors of steel elements. What is most important about this building is that it is not a typical big box. The glass is designed to create an open feeling. It will be the first LEED certified building for JC Penney. She corrected the size of the building to 105,300 square feet. What staff calls the sign is actually a particular enhancement that frames in the sign. They tried to create the M Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27, 2007 theme of the building with the signs included in the architectural enhancement. They have a choice of a white background and red letters or red with white. In the desert the white will not hold up. 16. Committee Member Smith stated he does not see the need for one so large along Adams Street. Ms. Clark noted the size differences. They have been the architectural enhancements on all sides of the building. Committee Member Smith asked staff what they were trying to achieve with Condition No. 1. Staff noted that similar big boxes in the City and stated that although they design architecture to accommodate a sign this is more than what has been done elsewhere. 17. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there was a lot of discussion in regard to the Best Buy sign. Whether or not this is acceptable, on the sides where the loading dock and even though there are a lot of trees to hide the loading dock, the sign is just too much. He does not appreciate the design on any of the buildings as it lacks a lot of detail. The front is ok, but the back and sides need some articulation. It is just too linear and the signs are too much. 18. Committee Member Smith asked staff where the pilasters should be added. Staff stated on the rear and incorporated into the sides. Carrying the element to all three sides. The interest is to make sure that the area where the future buildings will be constructed has the same architectural treatment. Ms. Clark stated that the revised drawings show it as being consistent. 19. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that whatever is added will need to be removed when the building is constructed next to it. Mr. Levin stated the lines are delineated. 20. Committee Member Smith asked why the south elevation was so flat and linear and the north has so much. Why do you need to see it from the south as it does not appear to match. Mr. Levin stated that if you stood back and could see across the roof you would see them projected up. Ms. Clark stated that from their property line you will not see it; it is too far. You might see it from the second story of the apartment buildings. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27. 2007 21. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the sign on the parking lot side is fine if it meets the City's Sign Ordinance. The ones on the side are too large and out of scale. He would prefer to see them scaled down and the two on the back need something added. Staff stated it appears to be a framed area which draws your eye to which looks like something is missing. Mr. Levin stated this is the rear of the building. It is their intent to create articulation for some consistency, but it will not be a primary path of travel. 22. Committee Member Bobbitt stated this has been an issue with all their buildings along Highway 111. Ms. Clark asked if they added different colors to give the variation. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about adding the pilasters on the west and east elevations. Mr. Levin stated they will continue the pattern, materials, and colors. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the temporary pilasters. Mr. Levin stated on the south it is not a problem. The east and west gets to be a tighter breakup from what JC Penney is asking. Ms. Clark stated that when they built Pet Smart they painted the area where the future building will be with the same color, but did not add any articulation. Staff stated the request was to add the pilasters to the side and back. Mr. Levin stated adding pilasters to the south is not an issue. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that removing the upward frame creates just a long linear line. Staff stated it was not staff's idea to give suggestions, but the relief on the long linear look is coming from the frame, but instead of being a frame maybe the whole area could project out. Mr. Levin stated that on the west elevation the whole vertical element projects out a couple feet and the lip pops out a couple more feet. The border is champered out and the face is inset slightly. Staff recommended a different feature for the side popout. 23. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the sides need more articulation and less of the square. Ms. Clark stated the east elevation has a retention basin with a landscaping area that goes to the end of the building. La Quinta Drive ends half way down and Wal-Mart extends beyond this which will hide the sides. Committee Member Bobbitt stated then why is the sign needed on the west side. Mr. Levin stated these two elevations they could add the pilasters for the expanses between where the projected future buildings will be and the edge of the R Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27, 2007 building to become understated as far as the red square, but have articulation equal to the expanses. 24. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would recommend framing them to give articulation to not look like a big red sign. Mr. Levin stated they would keep the articulation with some pilasters. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the big red sign is the only articulation and something else is needed if the sign is kept. Staff stated these are areas of limited visibility, why not eliminate them entirely and just go with the pilasters and carry up the stone element, pop it out and add a small understated sign. 25. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2007-016 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-891, as recommended by staff and amended as follows: a. Condition Nos. 2, 5, and 7 deleted b. Condition No. 1: amended as follows: 1) The north elevation is recommended as proposed. 2). The applicant shall redesign the side and rear square framed fascias with a complimentary color to the building at the discretion of the architect. The front framed logo fascia is recommended for approval as proposed. 3) Two additional stack stone pilasters shall be placed at the rear corners of the building. Stack stone pilasters shall be extended all the way up along the framed fascias. The east elevations shall have an additional stack stone pilaster placed at the middle. 4) Tree wells shall be spaced at regular and consistent intervals throughout the parking lot except above the underground storm water retention proposed in the western area of the parking lot. 5) Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. All lighting shall be shielded and focused with the project boundaries. 6) Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional and shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27, 2007 the Community Development Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter landscaping, shall be certified to comply with the 50% parking lot shading requirement, and be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the Planning Director. 7) Final carport designs and colors shall be submitted with the Site Development Permit application for future building pads 4 and 5. Unanimously approved B. Site Development Permit 2006-889; a request of Kerr Project Services (for Applebee's Restaurant) for consideration of development plans for a 5,914 square foot restaurant located northeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Seeley Drive in the Centre Pointe development. 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 recommended condition #4. Staff introduced Deborah Kerr, Kerr Project Services, Jim Stuart and Myron Thompson, Applebees, and Kalvin Mizzi, CP Development, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the gooseneck light is a trademark. Ms. Kerr stated that with the additional architecture, you will not see them. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the utility doors should not be lit. 3. Committee Member Smith asked why staff did not want the roof tiles lit. Staff stated it has not been done on any other 0 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27. 2007 building in the City, but they could work with the applicant on the lights. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with staff's recommendation on the landscaping. The one gallon strelizia reginae will burn with the afternoon sun and the sizes proposed are too small. If they are put on the east side of the building they will do fine. The la jollas should not be intermixed in a small area or used as a hedge. They will grow as large as you let them and the gardeners will cut them into funny shapes. It would be better to use a rosenka bougainvillea. 5. Committee Member Smith did not agree with the dalia and acacia rodolens being used in the tiny areas. It is low growing but will spread out onto the sidewalk. 6. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Smith/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2007-017 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-889, as recommended by staff and amended as follows: a. Condition #4: Deleted. b. The applicant shall replace the la jolla bougainvillea with a rosenka variety; the estraila and acacia redolens and the bird of paradise shall be replaced with a different variety. Unanimously approved C. Site Development Permit 2007-872 and 2005-848; a request of Trans West Housing for consideration of final landscaping plans for portions of the Griffin Ranch interior common areas, including medians and pasture for the property located south of Avenue 54 to the east of Madison Street. 1. Principal Planner Andrew 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, representing Griffin Ranch, and Chuck Shepardson, HSA Landscaping, who gave a presentation on their request. 2. Committee Members stated they have no issues with the project as proposed. 0 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee June 27, 2007 3. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adopt Minute Motion 2007-018 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-872 and 2005-848, as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Smith to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on July 12, 2007. This meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. on June 27, 2007. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER Executive Secretary 10 Q� V S 5 �4 CE`y OF ��w ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: JULY 11, 2007 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-863 APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL STREET PERIMETER LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR TRACT 34243 (PASO TIEMPO) LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58 APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF MADISON STREET BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the north side of Avenue 58 immediately east of the Santa Rosa Trails project (Attachment 1). The site is a rectangular site 1, 526' + deep and 661.3' wide. A subdivision for this 20 acre site into a gated 70 single-family residential lot project with private streets was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 as Tentative Tract 34243. Several miscellaneous lots have been created for storm water retention, common area landscaping and private streets. The preliminary architectural plans for single family units and landscaping plans were approved July 25, 2006 for this project as part of this SDP. One of the Conditions of Approval is that the final landscaping plans be reviewed by the ALRC prior to approval by the Planning Director. The applicant has submitted the final Avenue 158 perimeter landscaping plans for review. The balance of the on -site common area and front yard landscaping plans will be submitted separately. The approval required several design or plant material revisions to the perimeter landscaping plans which are discussed below. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval for the Avenue 58 perimeter landscaping and entry and wall plans. The plans show irrigation and planting for this area, as well as the Avenue 58 perimeter wall design. P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2006-863 innovative alrc rpt2.doc The Avenue 58 perimeter planting plans are similar to the preliminary plans previously approved. Revisions as required by the SDP approval that they have done include: 1 . Massing of shrubs as opposed to being individually spotted. 2. Chinese Elm trees have been replaced with Purple Leaf Acacia trees. 3. Berming is shown on the plans as required. 4. Shrubs are shown at 5 gallons size. The plans include the vehicular entry gates and Avenue 58 perimeter walls. A subdivision monument sign is shown on the northwest corner of the entry drive. This requires approval of a sign permit. ISSUES: Common Olive trees are required to be "fruitless" and have not been changed on the plans. Twenty-five per cent of the trees are required to be 36" box size. The plans specify 25% of the trees are to be 36" box size but do not designate their specific location. The entry gates and perimeter wall provisions are in conformance with the preliminary approval. The subdivision identification monument sign shown on the northwest corner of the entry drive requires approval of a separate sign permit. The plan uses Yellow Bird of Paradise shrubs along areas of the frontage. Staff feels the Mexican Red Bird of Paradise is a more attractive plant of similar characteristics and should be used instead. Additionally, at the corner of Avenue 58 and the entry road there are shrubs (Yellow Bird of Paradise) that will become too large and will obstruct vehicular visibility. Only groundcovers or small open shrubs should be used in this area. Palm trees are required to be 15' (brown Trunk Size). The plans only state they will be 24" box size which may not be 15' tall. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Director approval of the perimeter planting and entry area plans, subject to the following Conditions: 1. "Common" Olive trees shall be changed to a "Fruitless" variety. 2. Designate specific locations of required 36" box size trees along Avenue 58. 3. Entry sign is not approved and requires approval of a Sign Permit. 4. Palm trees shall be designated to be minimum 15' brown trunk height. P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2006-863 innovative alrc rpt2.doc 5. The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and CVWD and submitted to the Planning Director for final plan approval. 6. Yellow Bird of Paradise shrubs shall be changed to Mexican Red Bird of Paradise. 7. Planting around Avenue 58 and entry street intersection shall be revised, removing larger growing shrubs, to ensure vehicular visibility as required by Public Works Department is provided. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Final Plans Transmitted by: �1„Jlt- Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\STAN\sdp\sdp 2006-863 innovative alrc rpt2.doc 0 ATTACHMENT #1 z o �Lu w THE HIDEAWAY w c w � w k Ld AVENUE 54 w w ry PGA WEST Z 0 n Q CASE MAP CASE: No. TTM 34243 5r,)p `Zooto-s(D3 AIRPORT BLVD. (AVENUE 56) AVENUE1.58 SCALE:: 0 RTH (INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES)i NITS