Loading...
2008 02 06 ALRCARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall — Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California FEBRUARY 6, 2008 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2008-007 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call IL 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 January 2, 2008. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS 2007-027 Applicant ................ Clint Knox, Komar Desert Properties, LLC Location .................. South side of Highway 111 between Jefferson and Dune Palms Request .................. Review of final internal landscaping plans for portions of the Komar Desert Center. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE February 6, 2008 B. Item ........................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-898 Applicant ................ Regency Marinita La Quinta, LLC Location .................. Southwest corner of Jefferson and Fred Waring. Request .................. Consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for a neighborhood shopping center of 90,441 square feet. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 C. Item ........................ VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2007-039 Applicant ................ Prest Vuksic Architects for David Chapman Location .................. Northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. Request .................. Consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for two 7,045 square foot, single -story office buildings. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 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 Regular Meeting to be held on March 6, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, 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, February 6, 2008, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Post Office, 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, February 1, 2008. DATED: February 1, 2008 4 , �dt&A'- CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\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 January 2, 2008 10:OO a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:16 a.m. by Planning Director Les Johnson. B. Committee Members present: Jason Arnold, Bill Bobbitt, and Ronald Fitzpatrick. C. Staff present: Assistant City Manager Doug Evans, Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of November 7, 2007. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to approve the minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2007-900; a request of the City of La Quinta for consideration of a schematic design package for the SilverRock Resort Clubhouse located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. 1. Assistant City Manager Doug Evan presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about ingress/egress for the site. Assistant City Manager Doug Evans stated it was it was defined in the SilverRock Master Plan. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about a second entry. Staff noted the second access on Avenue 54. 4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the City was encouraging the use of solar panels. Staff stated the project could be LEED certified even without the solar panels. 5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the architectural style. Staff replied it was a Mexican or South American Hacienda -type style. It was a combination of styles and not a definite singular style. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt said the design elements were very good, but was concerned about the extensive use of wood. Staff replied they were aware of the maintenance concerns and were working with the architect to minimize the use of wood. 7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there were any concerns by the neighbors surrounding the project and had the City contacted them. Staff said the City contacted the neighbors within the required 500 foot radius and no negative replies were received. He then outlined the layout of buildings and how they would be viewed by the neighbors. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the height limitation. Staff replied 65 feet was allowed in the Specific Plan, but the project might not go that high. Staff has been looking at several designs and feasibility studies for the hotel. Staff added the landscaping designs would be brought back for ALRC review. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would like to see solar included in the design as it would give the City an opportunity to make a statement. 10. Committee Member Fitzpatrick suggested a condition be added to consider adding solar panels. Staff said it was already plumbed, and the electrical was set up for solar. It was not a question of if they would use solar, but when it would be financially feasible. 11. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2008-001 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-900 as recommended. Unanimously approved. 9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 B. Final Landscaping Plans 2007-025• a request of Innovative Communities for review of Final Landscaping Plans for Watermark Villas interior common area and perimeter landscaping located at the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Staff introduced Brad Fomon, with Innovative Communities who gave a presentation on the project and requested the California Pepper Trees and retention basin turf remain as they had already been installed. 3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the retention basins and the plantings surrounding them. Mr. Fomon described how they had changed the landscaping plans to accommodate the trees currently planted. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the loss of all the palms previously on site. He did like the initial project presentation done several years ago and asked if the project was going ahead. Mr. Fomon replied they were going ahead with the project. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if Innovative was going to go ahead with building more units. Mr. Fomon replied they are currently working on their models and the remainder of the units would be built as the economic climate allowed. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the California Pepper Trees (Schinus Molle) and stated the Commission usually does not recommend use of these trees due to the high attrition rate. However, he did not have a problem with leaving those planted where they were, and suggested no more be added. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he had a problem with the screening on the north (Citrus) side and its effects on the residents. Mr. Fomon said there would be no serious effects as they were working to resolve their issues with the Citrus residents. He clarified they hoped to solve the problem with the trees by installing 40-inch planter boxes with holes at the bottom so the tree roots could grow into the ground for Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 screening. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be mounding around these boxes. Mr. Fomon replied in some cases there would be a small amount of mounding with the planter I'DoxeS sitting on top to protect the neighbor's view. This would make them look more integrated into the project 8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on how well put together the exhibit packet was and how easy to follow. He then asked how the 50% turf reduction was determined. Mr. Fomon said he was unfamiliar with the new requirements as the project was approved prior to their implementation. He said they were amenable to reducing the turf area, but would like to retain the lushness of the entrance area. 9. Committee Member Fitzpatrick referenced the 50% reduction and wanted to know what that amount was based on. Mr. Fomon suggested staff address the comment. Associate Planner Wuu said there was no actual percentage stated but the recommendation was for the applicant to discuss possible turf reduction with the Committee. Staff said the applicant appeared to be willing to reduce the turf except for the entrance area. Mr. Fomon noted the areas where turf would be reduced on the exhibit. 10. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the key issue was the project was approved under the old CVWD requirements. Staff was encouraged that the developer was willing to make changes even when they do not have to. The key provision, for staff, is useable and functional turf should remain. There really isn't much of a benefit to turfing retention areas. He added the City respects their interest in keeping down the turf areas. 11. Mr. Fomon pointed out which turf areas must remain. Planning Director Johnson said turf reduction was identified as a discussion item rather than a condition. The landscaping was conditioned to receive ALRC as well as the Planning Commission approval. Therefore, the ALRC could recommend conditions to the Planning Commission requiring the applicant to work with staff on reducing turf where feasible. 12. Planning Director Johnson said the percentage wasn't as important as the direction the applicant was going. The reduction of turf in the retention areas would be the most M Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 beneficial but they would have to look at the overall turf usage as well as function and aesthetics. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the applicant is requesting approval of his landscaping plans, but it is up to the applicant to reduce the turf. He did not want to put a mandate on the applicant to follow the new regulations. 14. Planning Director Johnson said even prior to the new CVWD Ordinance, the approach of the Commission has been fairly strong on reduction of turf unless it is areas that are of functional value and purpose. The central area has a functional value and purpose. 15. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a number, that represented 30% of the project should be turf. 16. Committee Member Arnold said there was a printed formulation which the Committee had previously received and it was probably about 30% or 20% of the overall site area. Planning Director Johnson said CVWD's new regulation mandate a limit, but there wasn't one when this project was originally presented. 17. Planning Director Johnson said staff was supportive of retaining the turf in the areas which were functional as well as an aesthetic focus. Staff would concur with what has been brought forth by the applicant and that consideration be given to reducing turf in the retention areas and maintaining turf in areas where there is a purpose for the resident's use. 18. Committee Member Arnold asked what type of mulch was being used. The applicant explained the original plans and what was now being considered including use of some on -site materials. 19. Committee Member Bobbitt commented on the Queen Palms and the problems currently in the Valley and suggested the applicant consider another variety. The applicant agreed not to use that type of Palm for future plantings. 20. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the letters from the Citrus Homeowners' Association and asked if the applicant was going to resolve those issues. Mr. Fomon said they were working with the Citrus HOA and has met with all their Board R Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 Members on site to discuss solutions. A formal letter should be submitted by the HOA when the project is presented to the Planning Commission stating what had been resolved. 21. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was any need for color boards, architectural details and anything of that sort. The applicant replied they had already been through that. 22. Committee Member Bobbitt had a concern about the height of the date palms being used in a landscaped area, due to crown drop. He suggested nursery grown date palms from 15 to 20 feet. Taller trees may not fully recover from transplanting. Mr. Fomon said they were trying to vary the heights of the trees and wanted the opportunity to have 40 footers to be more consistent with the project. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested they either have their landscape architect or a certified arborist select the trees being brought in from outside. He strongly suggested they inspect the trees already transplanted. He said it was not a good idea to buy trees left over from a non -operational date grove. 23. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2008-002 recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2007-025as recommended and amended: a. Condition added: Any new trees shall be a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum equal in height to the existing trees b. Condition added: Turf shall be modified as agreed upon by staff and applicant. Unanimously approved. C. Final Landscaping Plans 2007-026; a request of Trans West Housing for a review of final landscaping plans for portions of the Griffin Ranch interior common areas, including the clubhouse perimeter and mail building located at the southeast corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street. 1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Staff introduced Michael Horton who gave a presentation on the project. A Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 2. Committee Member Bobbitt had no problems with the project, but had one question about the Hybrid Mesquite trees in the project. Mike Horton, H.S.A. Design Group, 42575 Melanie Place, Suite 5, Palm Desert replied he thought it was an Arizona hybrid with a better root system and less prone to tipping in the wind. They use this tree because the City of Palm Desert requires it because it is a better hybrid. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would be interested in seeing how this tree holds up. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt said it was a very good project. 4. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-003 recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2007-026 as submitted. Unanimously approved. D. Site Development Permit 2007-894; a request of The Quarry at La Quinta for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for an expansion of a maintenance yard facility located on the south side of Cahuilla Park Drive, west of south Jefferson Street. 1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked why staff was willing to approve a metal building for this project. Principal Planner Mogensen said because this was a maintenance yard. Metal - type buildings have been allowed in the past, if they are being used for storage with full screening provided and not being used as a break room or offices. 3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about screening. Staff replied that was included in the recommendations. He suggested the ALRC might consider whether these types of materials and the addition of the Carolina Cherries are a suitable use to hide the building from adjacent residences. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt said he was hesitant to use the Carolina Cherry trees and thought the Oleanders would be fine if maintained properly. He suggested the use of an African Sumac. 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the butler building would be painted or textured. Chuck McBride, Architect, 77-980 Wildcat #2, Palm Desert, said it was a ribbed building and is pre -painted wall panel. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they were going to use a brown color for the trim. Mr. McBride replied they were. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the applicant had contacted the adjacent neighbors about this project. Mr. McBride said they had contacted the homeowners and they found the plan acceptable. 7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there would be any type of gravity ventilation to circulate the air. Mr. McBride said the buildings would be fully insulated and there would be ventilation, either mechanical or passive. 8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a representative from the Homeowners Association. Mr. Steve Beebe, 79-434 Cetrino, La Quinta, introduced himself and gave the viewpoint from the homeowners. 9. Mr. McBride commented on the landscaping on Tom Fazio Lane, and Cahuilla Road. He said they have a large material palette throughout the Club and did not want to introduce a brand new palette for one particular site. Secondarily, the Cahuilla Road landscaping can certainly be enhanced at this point as it is about a decade old, but unless the City is interested in doing it there is no other developer or project that really has an opportunity to continue the additional landscaping both in the entry direction and towards Lake Cahuilla. It is currently desert landscaping with homes adjacent to the south. This will end up as a landscape island by itself and that would actually be a detriment. 10, Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about safety requirements for the solid fuel tanks. Mr. McBride explained how the fuel tanks were constructed. They went through the normal entitlement process with the Fire Department and, based upon their meetings with the Fire Marshals and with the California Regional Water Control Board, they were going to have covered tanks which would conform to future requirements. These tanks would address pollution issues such as rainfall which hits the P. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 tops of the tanks, gathers the pollutants and may exit the site. The tanks, themselves, will not be a problem. 11. Committee Member Fitzpatrick pointed out there were a lot of discussion points and asked if staff would be comfortable with approval of this project and working with the applicant. Staff replied this was one project that had not identified the perimeter landscaping and this was drawn up prior to the City's current landscaping standards. Principal Planner Mogensen said this project had not identified full perimeter landscaping. The Municipal Code requires landscaping but this project was developed a very long time ago. At the time the landscaping standards were not as stringent, and there were two requirements needed to accomplish that goal which was: 1) to bring it up to the City's current standards, and 2) to provide adequate screening both through a wall and enhanced landscaping. 12. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked where this application went after this meeting. Staff said it would go to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Committee could say they approve it in concept only or did these other issues have to be resolved first. Planning Director Johnson explained the approval process for this type of application. 13. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would like to see a plan that showed what they were going to do conceptually, but will address any further issues when the final landscaping plans come before the Committee. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt said in the past this Committee has tried not to remove conditions, but the staff would present these conditions to the Planning Commission. He explained how recommendations could be made to the Planning Commission. 15. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about staff's concerns and if they were included in the Conditions of Approval. He asked about the groundcover recommendation. Staff said the conditions of approval met their concerns by providing the additional landscaping and raising the wall. Committee Member N Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 Fitzpatrick asked about the ground cover material recommendations. Staff replied that it was included in Condition Number 4. 16. Mr. McBride asked if the Committee's recommendation was to not only enhance, or improve, the Lake Cahuilla Road, but to upgrade the ground cover as shown in Condition Number Four. Committee Member Bobbitt said Mr. McBride had a valid point, and the landscaping looks very natural. He does not want to see any "contrived" looking landscaping, but something that looks natural. He did not want to see any planted living ground cover and suggested the use of rock. Staff said a large caliper rock would be needed due to erosion. 17. Principal Planner Mogensen said the project will be reviewed with Public Works and they may include additional conditions. When the project gets completed it will most likely look different than it does now. Mr. McBride said street improvements will be hundreds of nothing and then all of a sudden there will be street improvements and then we have many hundreds of feet of nothing again. It is really putting a major neon sign here that says "look at this project." 18. Committee Member Fitzpatrick requested an index key be included in future plans to make it easier for the Committee to quickly locate information. 19. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-004 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-894 with recommendations as submitted. Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2007-899; a request of East of Madison, LLC. for review of architectural and landscape plans for the Homeowners Association mailhouse and office located on the northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Monroe Street within The Madison Club. 1. Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 1n Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick was disappointed in the architecture of the building. He said it looked like a bunker with a corridor and the plans did not have a cover sheet with an explanation. First he noticed it is a rectangular building with only one way in and one way out. There should be a secondary exit somewhere. He added there were several inconsistencies in the plans with regard to the air conditioning system and asked if the building was intended to have air conditioning. 3. Craig Pearson, Pearson Architects, 74-260 Highway 111, Suite #8, Palm Desert, explained it was a hallway corridor and the occupant load was not more than 10 people. He added the building was to be air conditioned. He explained the air conditioning system had condenser units that were on a split system. 4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a certain percentage of natural light required by the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Pearson said this was not a residential building but a commercial building and it was not a requirement. 5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about a ceiling fan. Mr. Pearson said that would be developed in the final documents. He referred to Section 87.0 where it denotes the components of the ceiling. 6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the recession of the windows. Mr. Pearson said the windows were in a two by six wall and there was a canopy for shading. 7. Mr. Pearson responded to Committee Member Fitzpatrick's comments on the building's architecture. He said the intent was to tie this building in with the approved maintenance building so they appeared to be one compound. They have gates that will separate each of them and will be behind walls where the general public would not see them. 8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the east elevation and asked if there would be glass in those doors. Mr. Pearson said there would be. 9. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the grading plan. Mr. Pearson said they were all compliant and Building and Safety would do the final review. 11 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 10. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the color board. Planning Manager Sawyer said staff did have the color board but it was unavailable for the meeting. He explained this project would be going to the Planning Commission for approval but would come back to the ALRC for the final landscaping plan approval. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt said he didn't care for the architecture, but he respected the fact it needed to be tied in with the maintenance building. He asked how the homeowners would receive their mail. Staff replied the Post Office would deliver the mail to this building and the Homeowners' Association staff would then separate and deliver it to each residence. The applicant has indicated this plan has the approval of the Post Office. 12. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the meeting room. Jeff Prevost, 80955 Avenue 52, La Quinta, Vice President of the Madison Club, explained the facility would be used primarily for the mail as explained above. The purpose of the conference room was for HOA meetings. They have monthly and annual meetings and the HOA can have meetings in that room. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there were going to be very many people showing up at this building. Mr. Prevost said they would be more administrative -type activities. If there were a large meeting it would be held at the Clubhouse. The other purpose would be for their monthly Design Review meetings. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he did not care for the design of the building but it would be very functional for a maintenance building. Mr. Prevost said he appreciated the Committees' comments on the design of Madison Club since they are very proud of what they do. He commented the buildings would be screened in and would not have a lot of visual impact on the development. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed since it would be landscaped and would not be seen from the perimeter at all. 15. Committee Member Arnold commented they would not want to include anything that would not look good in this development. Mr. Prevost said it comes down to cost. They are putting their dollars in the highly visible buildings and not the smaller structures such as this one. 19 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 16. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-899 as recommended. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2007-901; a request of Bill Sanchez for review of parking lot, landscaping, and retaining wall plans within The Washington Park Retail Center located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47 within The Washington Park Retail Center. 1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the location of the ADA path. Staff showed its location. 3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the location of a large water feature on Washington and Avenue 48. Staff identified the location and replied it was actually on Avenue 47. 4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked how many parking spaces were involved. Staff replied they did not have that exact number. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was some formulation used for the parking spaces. Staff said the formula was 4 parking spaces per thousand for this Specific Plan. 5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about regulations on the hand rail. Staff pointed out the placement and gave a description of materials to be used. 6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the key or master page again. Planning Director Johnson said the old projects would not have this key page, but that staff is updating the application requirements so that all new projects would have it included. 7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about carports in the parking lot. Principal Planner Mogensen replied the Municipal Code requires carports for 30% of a parking lot if it is being 1R Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 used for office or medical, but since this project is retail it would be optional. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why they are looking at a landscaping plan before there are even buildings involved. Staff replied the Municipal Code requires a Site Development Permit application for a parking lot. 9. Bill Sanchez, Construction Manager for Washington 1 1 1, Ltd., 80-618 Declaration Avenue, Indio, said the site plan and site configuration had been approved via their Specific Plan. He said the building locations and the configurations were approved, as well as the ingress/egress locations. The submitted the landscaping because the want to start on improvements in the parking lot and the landscape as there are some leasing negotiations on these possible buildings. The actual footprint of the buildings might change within the pad location and at that point they would come in with an additional site permit for those buildings. 10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the parking lot spaces were based on the amount of square footage. Principal Planner Mogensen said they were but those numbers were decided during the Specific Plan application. Planning Director Johnson went over the calculations used for the parking space determination. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt wanted to go back to the size of the planters in the parking lot, for the trees, which was an issue he brought up 10 years ago. These planters in the parking lot. He could not tell from the plans what size the planters were and if they were in the shape of diamonds. Mr. Sanchez replied they were four-by-fours. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had a problem with that. He thought the City had changed their specifications to a larger size. Principal Planner Mogensen said the planters were identified on the plans as being nine feet wide and square. 12. Mr. Sanchez said this particular phase had a new, local landscape architect and he suggested they move away from the diamond design. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City's design guidelines dictated a certain size planter. Planning Director Johnson said WJ Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 he thought they did, but he didn't know if they guidelines were ever changed. They would need to check the City's minimum standards and report back to the Committee. He wasn't sure what the minimum standard was but he was pretty sure it was a four-by-four. 14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had a bit of problem when he got on the Committee originally and each the City Council interviewed him for a new term they asked him what kind of progress he had made. One of the issues was regarding the planting of trees and their discussion led him to believe they all had the same understanding. He now believes that may not be true and asked how he could be assured his recommendations from the past ten years were being followed. Planning Director Johnson replied that such changes must be made via the Municipal Code Amendment process. He couldn't speak about the last ten years, but would keep the Committee apprised of any future amendments. 15. Committee Member Bobbitt said he does not have many issues, but one of them is the size of trees. He realized it would impact the amount of parking spaces by increasing the size of the planter boxes. He asked staff to follow up on the size of the planter to make sure it would not be four feet. The percentage of trees that survive in those little squares is very low. Principal Planner Mogensen added the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) had new standards for the size of tree wells and thought it was five feet. 16. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would not be happy with five feet either. It should be a minimum of six feet and ideally eight feet. Staff asked his opinion of a four -by -nine in this situation. Committee Member Bobbitt answered he was a Certified Arborist and did a lot of studying on trees, especially attrition as in the case of the Peppers and the Mesquites. He finds that the architects rarely go back to a project ten years later. He then explained how the plantings should be handled and what could happen if done incorrectly. 17. Mr. Sanchez said they would work with staff to come up with an adequate planting area. 18. Committee Member Arnold said he liked the plant palette. 1R Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 19. Committee Member Bobbitt said the overall project was fine with the exception of the tree wells. 20. Mr. Sanchez explained the tree plantings for Target and the areas with security cameras that had to be trimmed. 21. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Acacia trees in the Target parking lot were pretty good trees and should do fairly well. 22. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2008-006 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-901 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: A. Committee Member Arnold asked if the Committee Members could receive a copy of the Village Design Guidelines. Staff replied they would be sent to the Committee Members. Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on February 6, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. on January 2, 2008. Respectfully submitted, CAROLYN WALKER Executive Secretary 1R ■ 0 0� Tvf 4 412awgu CF`x OF TNF'�w ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: FEBRUARY 6, 2008 FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS (FLP) 07-027 KOMAR DESERT PROPERTIES, LLC PETER D. BRANDOW & ASSOCIATES REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE KOMAR DESERT CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DEPOT DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 The Komar Desert Center project was originally approved by the City Council on January 3, 2006, as part of multiple approvals. The project, as approved, will be developed with a total of nine pad sites and internal parking lots occupying approximately 26 acres (Attachment 1). The Site Development Permit for the overall site layout and architectural details was reviewed by the ALRC on December 6, 2007. The ALRC reviewed the Komar Desert Center proposed landscape plans on December 6, 2006, and recommended they return for final landscaping review. The ALRC did recommend to the Planning Commission that a linear hedge be provided along the east elevations of Buildings 'E' and 'H', and that the applicant remove the use of Gleditsia Tricanthos and Gelsemium Sempervirens vine. For reference, the minutes from the December 6, 2006 ALRC meeting have been provided (Attachment 2). The Planning Commission approved Site Development Permit 2006-874 with the ALRC recommended conditions during their February 13, 2007 approval. The applicant has submitted final landscaping plans for the Komar Desert Center (Attachment 3). The final landscaping plans identify plant species, plant locations, and details regarding staking of trees, spacing of ground cover, and irrigation layout. Although the landscape plans address landscaping for the overall project site, the plans do not include landscape details for Pad Site 'G' (Mimi's Cafe), Pad Site 'J' (Souplantation), Costco and the Highway 111 frontage. Perimeter Highway frontage landscaping was previously addressed with Site Development Permit 2005-833 FLP 07-027 (ALRC Staff Report) (Costco). Although Pad Site 'J' has been conditioned for Final Landscape review by the ALRC, Pad Site 'G' has been conditioned for Final Landscape to be approved by Staff, without ALRC review. The proposed final landscaping plans for the Center are consistent with the existing perimeter landscaping at the Center and the landscaping for Costco. ANALYSIS: Plant species will be the same as the approved plant palate for Site Development Permit 2006-874, with the removal of Gleditsia Tricanthos and Gelsemium Sempervirens vine. The approved tree palate consists of Shoestring Acacia, Desert Museum Palo Verde, Mexican Fan Palm, and African Sumac. Trees are identified as being between 26" box and 36" box, with two 48" box African Sumac located at the northeast corner of Building 'F'. All Mexican Fan Palms have been identified to be a minimum of 25 feet in height, skinned, and free of diseases and pests (Attachment 3, pg 1-4). There is no use of turf within the project. During the plan check process for these plans, Public Works did not mandate any modifications in regards to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) visibility standards and had no comments. The Planning Development had no issues with the submitted plans and found them to be in accord with the existing conditions of approval and conceptual landscaping plans submitted and approved during the Site Development Permit process. The plans have already been stamped approved by both the Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2008- accepting the landscaping plans for review and approval by the Planning Director. Prepared by: E C CEJA Assistant PI nner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. ALRC Minutes (December 6, 2006) 3. Final Landscaping Plans for Komar Desert Center FLP 07-027 (ALRC Staff Report) ATTACHMENT #1 L TOM map ------------------- - -- - 7P" it �} T 7 .11.L �, �� q•, i I_ - 'r� 71 I; �7UI I 19111-111 i?ll ll -1 FITI. it 1111': 1TTTTISTJ -7 _ r � ..111-1111L'�LILW!.f L ATTACHMENT #2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 6, 2006 wave pool, are in the rental pool of the hotel. Planning'Manager Les Johnson clarified that the environmental revie%W would be cbpleted before the project was taken the Planning Commission or City Council. o 4. Committee Member Smith asked if there would be a wall separatin the tennis villas from the poo ea. Ms. Guillebeaux stated ther currently is a three foot wall but, they would be required to once the entire area. It'will have a six foot tall fence and ac�ess will only be through the main entrance. Committee Mem er Smith stat d that in regard to the plant material, he has n concerns There are some plants that he was unfamiliar �uvitXat ce is s private property, the applicant will reploes not work. He would recommend ti e remhe �arkinsonia trees as they are thorny and c -be e.' Discussion followed regarding the species t a wern\d �vill be high maintenance. 5. Committee Member Christopher basked about the date palms. Ms. Guillebeau /explained they wo� d not be transplanting any of the trees, 1}ut would be adding newoouunger trees to the site. 6. Committe Member Bobbitt asked that art palm trees used in high tra,ic area be healthy young trees a"C special care will need to/be taken when any trees are transplanted. rl There being no further questions, it was moved nd seconded by/Committee Members Smith/Bobbitt to adopt Mi to Motion ?006-035 recommending approval of Site Developm t Permit 2006-865, as recommended with the removal the Parkinsonia trees and consider less deciduous trees. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2006-874• a request of Komar Investments LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for seven commercial buildings located on the south side of Highway 111 at Depot Drive. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the. Community Development Department. Staff introduced Keith Pittsfird, SPGA Architecture and Planning, Peter Brandow, Peter Brandow and Associates Landscape Architects, Clint Knox, Project Manager, Vache Hanessian and Jim Brockman with Komar, who gave a presentation on the project. - r-%%A1pnnrCi Al prti aa_na nnr 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 6, 2006 2. Committee Member Christopher asked if the circulation plan was coordinated with Costco. Staff noted the main driveways and internal design were dictated by Costco. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the graphic art panels on the sides of some of the buildings. Staff explained the proposal. 4. Committee Member Christopher asked if the art work would be lit. Mr. Pittsford stated each piece will be lit in some manner with florescent tube lighting. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt explained he did not want any buildings with back wall that had no articulation. Mr. Pittsford explained the landscaping proposed and potential art work. Staff explained the concern was the loading dock on Building "A". Mr. Pittsford explained this building was a showroom and not a warehouse. There would not be a lot of deliveries. Staff noted the loading dock could be reduced in size. Mr. Pittsford stated there will be a gate to help screen the area. Planning Manager Les Johnson asked if the entrance to the loading dock could be arranged to minimize people cutting the corner. Mr. Brandow explained they were proposing to extend the planter to keep this from happening as well as allow the truck to pull in and out. 6. Staff discussed the treatment they were recommending for the rear of the building walls that face areas easily viewed by the public. Discussion followed regarding screen walls and landscaping that was proposed to be used for screening. Mr. Pittsford explained they will need help from the Fire Department and others regarding the wording that would be required on the doors. 7. Committee Member Christopher suggested using a hedge instead of a wall for the parkway entrance. Mr. Pittsford asked about a green -screen that creates a hedge that is four feet in width that could be used against the building. Mr. Brandow suggested a short hedge be used to blend in with the rest of the center. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it would depend on the species of hedge. He suggested alternative species. rn%wcnnrmni wrxi o_a� nnr 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee December 6, 2006 9. Committee Member Smith asked that the thorny trees be replaced as well as changing some of the deciduous species. Also, use a different vine that is not poisonous. 10. Staff explained the articulation being recommended for Building "H" where the rear wall faces the gas station. Mr. Pittsford explained the articulation they have added. 11. Committee Member Christopher asked that the access doors on the buildings be better defined. Committee Members all agreed with the use of artwork on the back of the buildings. Committee Member Christopher questioned the circulation at the center entrance. Why was there an island and not a two lane driveway all the way into the center. Staff explained it is an area of concern and will be monitored to see where the traffic flows. Discussion followed regarding how the traffic circulation would flow. Committee Member Christopher asked if the steel beams on Building "D" would be treated. Mr. Pittsford explained the material and treatment. 12. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Smith/Christopher to adopt Minute Motion 2006-036 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-874, as recommended with the deletion of the Gleditsia Tricanthos "Sunburst" trees and Gelsemium Sempervirens vine, and adding a linear hedge on the east side of Building "E" as well as Building "H"; Building "A" delete the screen wall. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None Vlll. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Christopher/Smith to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on January 3, 2007. This meeting was adjourned at 11:38 a.m. on December 6, 2006. Res ctfully submitted, B . S Exe ive Sec retary rn%umnnrci e i are i va_na nnr 5 11V1' C� O� 4 XP 49wev GS S cF`N OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2008 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-898 APPLICANT: REGENCY MARINITA LA QUINTA, LLC ARCHITECT: KTGYGROUP, INC. REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR 90,441 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL USES SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL USES EAST: COMMERCIAL USES IN CITY OF INDIO WEST: PARK, RETENTION BASIN AND CVWD WELL SITE BACKGROUND: The 10.8± acre project site is in the northern part of the city (Attachment 11. There are existing residences immediately to the south a with a retention basin, park and CVWD well site immediately to the west (Attachment 2). Previously, a Specific Plan and Site Development Permit were approved to allow a 102,402 square foot shopping center for this property in January 2004. In November 2005 an amended Specific Plan was approved for the site revising several aspects of the project including reducing the allowable maximum square footage of building area from 114,917 to 111,470 square feet. The previously approved Site Development Permit was not amended at that time and has now expired. The applicant is now proposing a new design for the shopping center. PROJECT PROPOSAL: General: The project includes five separate structures with the largest comprised of an OSH hardware, Fresh & Easy store, and several in -line shops near the west property line or rear of the site. Additionally, there is a freestanding drug store near the northeast corner P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\SDP 2007-898 Marinita alrc rpt.doc of the site, and three pads buildings proposed (Attachment 3 — sheet 2.1). Pad "A" is proposed to be a bank. Architecture: The project is designed in a Spanish -Mediterranean style utilizing a combination of flat, shed, gable and hip roofs. Each building would have at least one tower feature extending above the main roof height. Arcades would be provided over most business entry doors and adjacent windows, with some metal awnings used over windows where there is no arcade. Some building sides would be provided with false popout arcades (Attachment 3 — sheets 6.1 through 6.6). Roof heights vary to provide varying building masses. Generally, the flat roof heights are 20' up to 23'. Tower structures vary from 32' to 42' at the top of the OSH tower (Attachment 3 — sheets 6.1 through 6.6). Exterior materials would consist of fine sand float finish plaster walls, accent stone veneer, and concrete tile roofs. Roof tile would be a blend of red to red -gray with brown to rust stone veneer. Building walls would be more than one color with colors varying from beige to soft greens. Metal awnings would be dark green or a brown rust color (Attachment 3 — sheet 11). The building elevations show sign locations using generic names, except for the known major tenants. Because specific details are not provided a detailed sign program will be required (Attachment 3 — sheets 6.1 through 6.6). Landscaping/Site Design: A preliminary level landscaping plan has been submitted for the site. The plant palette consists of primarily desert and other low water use plants (Attachment 3 — sheets 2.2 and 3). One of the trees proposed is the Chilean Mesquite along the south property line and near the streets. Other trees include the Tipu tree, California Fan Palm, Queen Palms, Willow Acacia, and Palo Verde. Date Palms are shown on the plant palette but do not appear on the plan. Shrubs include plants such as Cassias, Brittlebrush, Ocotillo, Red Yucca, and Deer Grass. Because residential uses exist to the south a landscaped setback of 30' or 40'-7" is provided adjacent to this property line for screening and buffering. A portion of this area generally adjacent to the OSH store is shown as a retention basin. Except for 24" box size trees next to the property line, the balance of this area is shown in turf. Only turf is shown in the planter adjacent to the north side of the Fresh & Easy store. Most of the landscaped area along the west property line, except behind OSH, is also shown in turf and trees. The widest part of this area is proposed as a retention basin. Pad "A", near the middle of the Jefferson Street frontage, proposes a drive-thru lane between the building and street. A screen wall for the drive-thru lane is shown. P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\SDP 2007-898 Marinita alrc rpt.doc The Public Works Department requested some revisions to the circulation system of the project that have not yet been shown on the plans. These revisions are relatively minor and should not significantly affect the landscaping plan. ISSUES: Because residential uses surround much of the property, the project design needs to be compatible with these land uses. Features such as architecture, massing, colors, heights, landscaping, and heights must be considered. This projects architectural design is for the most part acceptable. There is a use of plaster popouts in side and rear areas of the buildings. Some of the popouts need to be increased in depth to 3' to 5' to ensure they provide relief to the large building walls. The variation in building heights provide interest and proportioned massing. However, in order to comply with the maximum 22' height limit within 150' of the street right-of- way Shop 3 and Pad "A" buildings must reduce their height from 24' and 23', respectively, to a maximum 22'. On several walls of buildings a vertical trellis for vines is shown. These trellises must. be metal tube structures. Along the west and south property lines relatively large planters planted mostly in turf and trees are shown. The use of turf in these areas is excessive and should be reduced. Additionally, the trees adjacent to the existing residences should be a minimum 36" box size to provide quicker screening. The plant palette proposes to use Chilean Mesquite trees in several areas of the site. Due to its growth habits, we have not been allowing their use. Therefore, a substitute tree should be provided. The street perimeter landscaping where possible should be provided with berming, especially in the area against the drive-thru screen wall. Tree sizes should be increased to ensure an adequate size tree is planted. The planter area immediately north of Fresh & Easy should be a combination of small and large shrubs, groundcover and decomposed granite with no turf used. The General Plan identifies the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street as a Secondary Gateway to the City. The previously approved project and existing Specific Plan reserved the Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street corner of their project for a City entry monument. The current proposed plan does not show this. Staff recommends that the corner area be reserved for the entry monument. In conclusion, provided the items above are addressed, the architectural and landscape design of this project is acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2007- 898 subject to the following Conditions of Approval: PAReports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\SDP 2007-898 Marinita alrc rpt.doc 1 . Plaster popouts on the building sides where they are not beneath an arcade shall be increased in depth to 3' to 5' to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 2. Shop 3 and Pad "A" (2) buildings shall reduce the height of the main flat roof areas to a maximum 22' within 150' of the ultimate street right-of-way line. 3. Trellis structures shall be color finished metal tube structures. 4. Turf in the large areas adjacent to the south and west property lines shall be reduced and replaced with decomposed granite and planting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 5. The Chilean Mesquite trees shall be deleted and replaced with a substitute tree to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 6. The trees adjacent to the existing residences along the south side of the project, along the street perimeters, and within the middle of the parking lot tree wells shall be a minimum 36" box size. 7. Tree wells in the parking lot areas shall be a minimum 6'x6' clear. 8. The street perimeter landscaping, where possible, shall be provided with 1' to 3' berming, especially in the area against the drive-thru screen wall where the berming shall be provided against the outside of the wall. 9. The Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and Public Works Director, and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project 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 Planning Department. 10. The landscaped area at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street shall be reserved for a City entry monument to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Planting around the monument shall be provided by the developer. 11. The planter area immediately north of Fresh & Easy shall be planted with a combination of small and large shrubs, groundcover and decomposed granite with no turf used to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\SDP 2007-898 Marinita alrc rpt.doc 12. The front door walkway areas of all buildings shall be provided with small planters for shrub, groundcover, vines, decomposed granite and where possible small growing trees to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 13. The Date Palm tree shall be deleted from the plant palette and plan if proposed. 14. Shrubs along the street perimeters shall be a minimum 5 or 15 gallons in size. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial map of site 3. Development Plan exhibits Transmitted by: e �aAAZA Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\SDP 2007-898 Marinita alrc rpt.doc ATTACHMENT 1 a 42 BEAR WADUNES' N[RY CLUB A. •I QA QHY RQAO i' '• J ti FRED WARING ' DRIVE AVE , / I �\ G � � 20 -. W. 21-J 6_e ��e5 _� 19 y iuj uj Point \HaPPv E CASE MAP CASE No. SDP 2007-898 REGENCY MARINITA LA QUINTA RT SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT #2 HOUSES I NORTH SDP 2007-898 REGENCY MARINITA LA QUINTA ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2008 CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2007-039 APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RON GREGORY AND ASSOCIATES (RGA) PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID CHAPMAN REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR TWO 7,045 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE Background: The Village Use Permit for the existing Arnold Palmer's Restaurant (VUP 00-004) was approved by Planning Commission on January 23, 2001. Palmer's Restaurant has been in operation since 2003 and is located at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive. The applicants previously proposed constructing a 13,171 square foot, two- story office building located at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive, which was heard by the ALRC on March 20, 2006. That proposal (VUP 06-033) was later heard by the Planning Commission and taken off calendar due to neighbors' concerns over height, scale, and massing. The proposal was later withdrawn by the applicant. Office Building Plans Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct two, 20 foot 6 inch high, single story, 7,045 square foot commercial office buildings within the existing Palmer's Restaurant site located at the northeast corner of Desert Club Drive and Avenue 52 (Attachment 1, pages 2 and 3). The desert -contemporary buildings, referred to as "A" and "B," have been designed to be consistent with the existing Palmer's Restaurant. Due to the PAReports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\ALRC VUP 2007-039 PALMERS.doc mirrored architectural plans, the buildings themselves are identical in architectural details and materials. The major difference between the two buildings is the reversed location of the shared restrooms and individual tenant entrances. Mechanical equipment will be located on the rooftop, screened from view within a 5 foot sunken well. Both buildings will overlook existing golf-themed landscaping features associated with the Arnold Palmer's Restaurant, though the existing golf feature at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive will be reduced in size. Exterior building finish will consist of cement plaster with a smooth finish complimented by a stack stone facade which, although not identical, is consistent with the existing restaurant. Portions of the roof overhang will feature stained timbers, designed to match the existing timbers of Palmer's Restaurant. Roofing material will consist of mission -style boosted clay tile. Outdoor lighting fixtures placed on the building will consist of lantern -type fixtures consistent with the existing restaurant. Setback, Height, and Bulk Regulations: The proposed building will meet the Village Commercial District's development standards. The general roofline of both buildings will be 19 feet in height, due to the placement of a 5 foot deep center well for HVAC equipment, with the roof peaks at the ends of the building measuring 20 feet 6 inches in height. Building A faces the western corner of the project site, generally 105 feet away from the corner of Desert Club Drive and Avenue 52. A 6 inch setback is identified at Building A's closest point to the Desert Club Drive right-of-way, though this west face of the building is not parallel to the street and the setback varies to 6 feet due to the building's undulation. Along Avenue 52 the building is 20 feet at its closest point from the right of way due to the existing 20 foot landscaping setback. The edge of Palmer's porte-cohere is approximately 75 feet from the closest point of proposed office Building A. The exterior face of Palmer's Restaurant is located approximately 112 feet away from Building A. The existing Palmer's Restaurant is 22' feet in height and has a small second story at the southwest corner used for offices and storage. On the eastern portion of the site, Building B is located 23 feet from Avenue 52 at its closest point. Building B is about 75 feet at its closest point to the existing restaurant and will share a view of the existing golf landscaping feature behind the restaurant. In regards to the relationship to the surrounding properties, the two existing Vista De Montana buildings across the street along Calle Amigo and Desert Club Drive are 34'6" at their highest point with setbacks of 5 to 10 feet from the right of way. Plaza De Barcelona, also across from Palmer's Restaurant on Desert Club Drive, has a 2 foot setback from the right-of-way and has a roofline 29 feet in height with an architectural P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\ALRC VUP 2007-039 PALMERS.doc cupola at the corner measuring 32 feet in height. The proposed Palmer's offices are architecturally similar to the nearby Vista De Montana buildings in that they have a similar facade and comparable use of stone veneer. Landscaping Proposal: A water -efficient but compatible landscaping theme will be applied around the perimeter of the proposed office buildings. The noted putting green and sand trap features at the corner of Desert Club and Avenue 52 will be retained but reduced in size. Building B will share the existing golf landscaping feature opposite from the restaurant's existing patio area. The applicants have identified California Pepper Trees, California Fan Palms, Date Palms, Palo Verdes, Acacia Palo Blancos, and Heritage Live Oaks for the proposed tree species. Shrubs include Bougainvilleas, Desert Spoons, Agaves, Red Yuccas, Pineapple Guavas, and Dwarf Oleanders, among others. Decomposed granite has been proposed for ground cover along the exterior landscaping. All existing landscaped areas which will remain "as is" have not been identified on the landscaping plans. Parking: The existing Arnold Palmer's Restaurant currently has 152 parking spaces. The applicants have proposed a reconfiguration of the parking area, providing a total of 176 parking spaces. With the addition of the two office buildings, 180 parking spaces are required, 4 spaces short of this amount. As the Village Commercial Ordinance allows some variation to the parking requirement, and the fact that Palmer's Restaurant is closed during the day when the offices would be in use, the applicants have agreed to a shared day/night parking agreement. Staff has also discussed revisiting the valet parking system with the applicant in order to better accommodate the proposed office building and to better manage the exchange of vehicles at the end of the business day. As per LQMC section 9.150.060, thirty percent of the required spaces are to be covered by a trellis or carport structure. The applicants have proposed placing two of the required carports at the center of the existing parking lot, due to current ADA regulations requiring access, rather than at the rear of the site. The applicants are proposing a minimalist styled carport structure painted consistent with the buildings, the details of which will be provided to the ALRC at the meeting. Analysis: Previous concerns with the original application for the office building focused on mass, scale, and height. Area residents had concerns that the original two-story office building was out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood and was placed too close to Desert Club Drive. With this two -building, single story proposal, height, mass, and scale are not anticipated to be an issue. Because retail and medical uses would require additional parking and involve a greater level of on -site activity, the use of the proposed buildings P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\ALRC VUP 2007-039 PALMERS.doc will be limited to general office commercial uses. While the proposed office buildings' architecture has been well designed and readily meets the Village Design Guidelines, it should be noted that the submitted proposal approximates, rather than replicates, the architecture and design of the existing Palmer's Restaurant. The existing stone veneer on the restaurant is more of a random pattern with larger pieces rather than the horizontal flat -stone pattern identified on the proposed buildings. The proposed tile roofing and building materials' aesthetic compatibility with the existing restaurant should be considered by the ALRC. With its trademark golf feature at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive, Palmer's has become something of a landmark in La Quinta. The applicants propose to reduce the size of this golf feature but attempt to retain the same design and character. The conceptual landscaping plans identify an area about the size of a putting green but do not identify sand traps. The proposed landscaping around the office buildings is compatible with the existing landscaping. Recommendation: Recommend approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for Village Use Permit 2007-039, subject to the following: 1 . Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, shall be reviewed by the ALRC and Public Works Director, and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter landscaping 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 Planning Department. 2. All air conditioning/mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view within the rooftop well. 3. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9,100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. A bulb refractor or dimmer shall be utilized with the proposed lantern fixtures if deemed necessary by staff. All relocated freestanding lighting within the parking lot shall not exceed the height of existing fixtures and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff. 4. The design of the carports shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director and shall be consistent with the design elements of the existing restaurant and proposed office buildings. P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\ALRC VUP 2007-039 PALMERS.doc Prepared by: Andre . Mogensen Prin al Planner Attachments: 1 . Site Plans and Elevations* 2. Existing Restaurant Photographs *Materials board and carport details to be presented during the ALRC hearing P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\2-6-08\ALRC VUP 2007-039 PALMERS.doc y t wt 411 s, LP: S M1� ° 1 n Tr rt - - -. ..._1 _ SS UL 'gob, ■