Loading...
2008 01 02 ALRC Minutes MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Ouinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Ouinta, CA January 2, 2008 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This re!)ular 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 Ouinta for consideration of a schematic design package for the SilverRock Resort Clubhouse located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. 1 . A,ssistant 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 \/Vas 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. 2 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. 1. 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 tlrees by installing 40-inch planter boxes with holes at the bottom so the tree roots could grow into the ground for 3 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 boxes 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 4 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 Lise 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 5 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 resQlved, 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 LandscapinQ 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. 6 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- wpe 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 8 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 9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 Fitzpatrick asked recommendations. Condition Number 4. about the ground cover material Staff replied that it was included in 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. 1 7. 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. 10 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 lO 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. IVIr. 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 elevation and asked if there would be glass in those doors. Pearson said there would be. east Mr. 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. 1 1 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 detiver 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 Guinta, 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. 12 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 2:008-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2:007-899 as recommended. Unanimously approved. F. Site Development Permit 2:007-901; a request of Bill Sanchez for review of parking lot, landscaping, and retaining wall plans within The Washin!~ton Park Retail Center located on the northeast corner of Washinl~ton 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 A venue 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 used for office or medical, but since this project is retail it would be optional. 13 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 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 111, 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 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 14 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2, 2008 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 siituation. 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. 19. Committee Member Bobbitt said the overall project was fine with the exception of the tree wells. 15 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee January 2. 2008 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. VIII. 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. Liu-t-ILfJU (J)dlJvu CAROL y~ WALKER Executive Secretary 16