The URL can be used to link to this page

2008 05 21 ALRCC° � � W 4n F`N OF TtT4'� ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall — Study Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California MAY 21, 2008 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2008-011 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approval of the Minutes of March 19, 2008. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS 2008-033 Applicant ................ East of Madison, LLC Location .................. Within the Madison Club, South of Avenue 52, East of Madison Street, West of Monroe Street. a ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE May 21, 2008 Request .................. Consideration of Final Landscaping Plans for the Madison Club Villas Front Yard Typical Landscaping. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 B. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS 2008-037 Applicant ................ La Quinta Country Club Location .................. Northeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50; within the La Quinta Country Club. Request .................. Consideration of Final Landscaping Plans for the La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Site. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 C. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS 2008-030 Applicant ................ Tarlos & Associates Location .................. Southwest corner of Depot Drive and Highway 111. Request .................. Consideration of Final Landscaping Plans for Souplantation. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding Commission summer meeting schedule. VIII. ADJOURNMENT This special meeting of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on June 4, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. PAReports - ALRC\2008\5-21-08\Agenda.doc ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE May 21, 2008 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 Special Meeting of Wednesday, May 21, 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 111, on Friday, May 16, 2008. DATED: May 16, 2008 CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California PAReports - ALRC\2008\5-21-08\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 March 19, 2008 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Jason Arnold, Bill Bobbitt, and Ronald Fitzpatrick. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive 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 February 6, 2008. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Fitzpatrick to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: Village Use Permit 2008-040; a request of Michel Despras for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans to remodel a 5,485 square foot restaurant in the location formerly known as "The Blend", located at 78-073 Calle Barcelona. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the architectural character and the continuity with the Village and its Design Guidelines. He asked if the applicant had used the Village Design Guidelines in designing this building renovation. o.\D --- ., - AT U(Y0nnQ�G-Ii_ne\z_1o_nc n—anet«.,toy 4— Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 a. Applicant's Representative, Stan Pollakusky, 80338 Avenida Santa Belinda, Indio, said he had not seen the Village Design Guidelines, but he had brought some visual aids for the Committee Members. He also introduced Michel Despras, 74-985 Highway 111, Indian Wells, the applicant, and Nicholas Despras of 78-890 Zenith Way, La Quinta. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the Village was a very special area and the Committee wanted to adhere to the Village Design Guidelines in order to maintain that unique atmosphere. He asked Mr. Pollakusky what type of design style was utilized for this building and what was his motivation for the tower. Mr. Pollakusky said there was no identifiable design style, but they did use a lot of French doors and that dictates the design style. He pointed to a model of the building and explained each area and its usage. The layout was designed by the needs of the restaurant's interior. He showed the Committee Members the design layout and explained the applicant's intention in using this particular design. He said they were more concerned with the front facade than the rest of the building. The building has the feel of a residence, but they did not want it to look like a residence. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Pollakusky if he was aware there are Village Guidelines. Mr. Pollakusky said he did not know they existed. Committee Member Fitzpatrick showed him the Village Guidelines and explained some of the pertinent points. He said he looked at their design and did not see any of these Guidelines being followed. Mr. Pollakusky said the biggest problem they have with the building is low ceilings and huge air conditioning ductwork as well as the fact the interior ceiling is tongue -and -groove• with no insulation on the inside so they had to go above the roof to add insulation. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if they had to have insulation. Mr. Pollakusky said yes as there is only a little bit of foam on the roof. Mr. Pollakusky explained what they were going to have to do to add the ductwork as well as the reasoning for the facade and other details which were included on the design plans submitted to the Committee Members. He used his architectural model to explain the renovations on this building. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if they had reviewed the design guidelines would they have come up with a different facade. He then gave examples of the type of architecture/design that conforms to the Design Guidelines. He said since they had not seen the Guidelines they might want to re -think the entire design. 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Mr. Pollakusky said they were not trying to do a major overhaul on the restaurant. They have a budget to adhere to and they are trying to minimize the amount of work they will have to do on this building. He is trying to work with what they have and not change it to be part of the Village, but improve on what is there. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the tower could be re -configured to more closely match what is in the village, such as Tuscan, Spanish, Mediterranean, etc. Mr. Pollakusky said across the street is not Mediterranean and asked if it had to be a Mediterranean design. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said it did not, but the applicant should look at the Guidelines in order to present a more compatible design style. Committee Member Fitzpatrick was also concerned about the fact there was no consideration to the project being pedestrian -friendly, and there were no short wall courtyards out in front. The Village has a certain flavor and a certain approach to design guidelines. He offered to give Mr. Pollakusky a copy of the Guidelines for consideration. Mr. Pollakusky said he would consider it. However, he said right now they are not trying to copy everything there because this is a totally different style from Old Town and he is trying to add on and enhance what is currently here. It is very simple architecture. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said if he sees a tower such as what was proposed it does not go with anything in the area and does not adhere to the Village Design Guidelines. He did say the overall design concept is okay. Mr. Pollakusky said they can change the design style to another style, such as Tuscan. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said they also need to address the Village Design Guidelines as far as the roof is concerned. Mr. Pollakusky pointed to the designs again and explained they were planning to add a shake type roof. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about additional HVAC equipment. Mr. Pollakusky said there would be no additional units as there are 25-ton units there now. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there would be an extra load if clay tiles were added. Mr. Pollakusky said no as they had allowed for the extra weight. 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick had a comment about direction of the compass arrow on the plans and suggested they take that into consideration on their next set of plans. Mr. Pollakusky explained how they had designed the plans. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said it misdirected him when he went from one page to another. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would have additional comments when the plans came back. Mr. Pollakusky said he disagreed with the Planning Staff regarding the parapet and roof plans due to the roof pitches. He explained what they planned to do to overcome the problems involved with the different pitch changes and showed the Committee Members the new plans. He explained how they came up with the designs versus the pitch changes. Mr. Despras commented on the venting on the roof over the kitchen and the need to conform to the Fire Marshall's requirements. He commented on what the roof would contain, such as antennas. He added he had two other restaurants and the addition of patio areas and landscaping will make this a more upscale -looking restaurant. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said there were a lot of blanks on the design plans and they didn't really explain what was going on, but the landscaping designs did. Committee Member Arnold said the plans did not show what was going up and what was being replaced. Mr. Pollakusky explained what the changes were. Mr. Despras commented on the amount of money they had spent on the replacement of trees. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if Mr. Despras had previously owned this property. Mr. Despras said he did. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked where the mechanical equipment would be located. Mr. Nicolas Despras showed where they would be located on the plans. He also used the model on the table and pointed out various other features. Committee Member Arnold asked if there was a cinder block wall separating the properties. Mr. Nicholas Despras said it was currently a lattice fence. GI Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was looking for material samples, colors, etc. Mr. Nicolas Despras explained they were not included in the packet, but they were brought with them to the meeting. Committee Member Fitzpatrick also asked about ADA regulations and compliance. Planning Director Les Johnson said they would have to comply with all ADA regulations. Planning Manager David Sawyer asked about the screening. Mr. Nicholas Despras pointed them out on the plans. Planning Director Johnson asked about the air conditioning condenser and the latticed screening area. Mr. Nicholas Despras explained where it was. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the capabilities of the air conditioning system and condenser. Mr. Despras explained they had very large condensers and they were more than adequate to handle the needs of the expanded building. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja showed the samples and color boards. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the roof sample. Staff said it was metal. Mr. Nicholas Despras said they were changing that material to a shake roof material. Committee Member Arnold asked if that material complied with the Village Guidelines. Planning Director Johnson told the Committee Members the buildings in the area were very simple. He said the applicant could do something more in line with the buildings in the area. Committee Member Arnold asked if this was the first remodel to have to comply with the Village Guidelines. Planning Director Johnson said the applicant was trying to accomplish their objectives and also to clean up the building and make it more aesthetic. Committee Member Arnold said anything done to clean up the building would be an improvement to the Village. Planning Director Johnson said they were trying to work with the applicant, to make the building more compatible to the area. The challenge was with the tower element. Staff has made recommendations to raise the pitch of the roof, but that created some issues. This project has been a challenge for staff and they complimented the owner for his efforts, but they need to come up with something that works. 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Committee Member Arnold asked how set the Committee was supposed to be on the Guidelines. Planning Director Johnson said they were just Guidelines. The objectives were they wanted to see the applicant be a success, but the building has to be complimentary not contrasting to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Nicholas Despras asked if contrast couldn't be a good thing. He added, by having contrast you create a more visual building. He said all you can really see is the tower. He pointed out areas of interest on his building model. Committee Member Fitzpatrick did not argue with the concept. He wanted to know how the design departure complimented the Village Design Guidelines. He asked about the pedestrian -friendly areas and park -like settings. He only saw the tower. Mr. Nicholas Despras said this is a restaurant and it needs to be inviting. He said a park -type seeing was created by the trees added to the patio areas. He asked when the Committee talked about the roof what design style were they looking for, such as a Spanish tile or shake. Planning Director Johnson said from his perspective the roof material needed to be more compatible with the building design and a Spanish tile roof would not match the design of the building. Mr. Despras pointed out a nearby building which was not Spanish style with roofing material that was flat gray. Planning Director Johnson said the latest roof material the applicant proposed would the most conducive to the building design style. Mr. Despras said five years ago they were considering a certain design style which would be classified as "casual elegance" and showed the Committee Members a book with the proposed design. Committee Member Arnold said that would work very well in the area. Mr. Despras said that was five years ago, this is now. He said the restaurant would never be like Arnold Palmers or Amore. They want to go back to a house -type feeling with an intimate atmosphere. Committee Member Bobbitt said the two biggest elements are the tower and the top section. He said he understood why they would have a problem disguising the various roof lines. He did not have a problem with the tower element. He said it just looked unfinished, but he would like to see' something with a little bit softer line. 1.1 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Committee Member Bobbitt said one thing that will help is to plant trees around the building to soften it up. He noted where there was hardscape and Mr. Despras pointed out where the trees would be added to soften up the building design. He said they were adding ten more 17-foot Ficus trees. He commented on when they bought the building in 2000 and planted trees, the lease was supposed to be up in 2011 and they thought the trees would be large enough. They have had to come in and replace some of those trees. The landscaping plans were placed on the table and Mr. Despras explained where all the trees and plants would be going. The Committee Members discussed various items on the design plans. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the applicant really should look at the Village Design Guidelines and it would allow them an opportunity to include sitting areas, etc. The Guidelines suggest that type of environment. Planning Director Johnson asked if they could potentially have people waiting. Mr. Despras explained the clientele they get in the Palm Springs and Indian Wells does not like to wait outside, especially in the summer so there would be no need for seating outside. Mr. Despras said restaurants do not do well if the clients arrive and they have to wait. He added they are reducing the seating arrangement in the lobby and pointed out how the arrangement would be changed to add additional seating inside. He said they would be reducing the table area to accommodate a more pleasant entrance area. He then explained the table layout. Committee Member Bobbitt said from his viewpoint they don't have a large problem with the roof, but they do have somewhat of a problem with the tower element as it needs to be softened. He said the client appears to be on top of the landscape requirements. Mr. Despras said the leasees had let the plants die, but they will be replacing the dead plants. Committee Member Bobbitt said the applicant does not have to do anything to this building. The fact that he is trying to upgrade it is a compliment to the applicant, This is not a historical building according to the City guidelines. Mr. Despras said they appreciate the compliment. Committee Member Bobbitt said there is a problem with the roof, but he is going to leave that to the professionals. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the client needs to look at the Village Design Guidelines and submit the correct design. It would be an exceptional opportunity for an architect to do a very nice project. There is something comfortable about the Village and a reason for the Guidelines; ambiance, 7 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 aesthetics, etc. He wanted to see something here that would be complimentary. He said the Committee has concerns and he wants the Planning Commission to know they want some changes in the designs. It is an excellent opportunity for the architect to look at the Guidelines with a view to make a landscaped area that would invite people in. He would like the flavor to show something that is mentioned in the Design Guidelines. He does not want the client to ignore the Guidelines. Mr. Pollakusky asked if there was something in the Guidelines that was a little more contemporary. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said there was room for a contemporary design. Mr. Despras asked if there was room for something more contemporary on the roof with Spanish tiles other than a gray tile. Planning Director Johnson said the color needed to be in line with the building. Mr. Despras asked about color choices for the roof. Committee Member Arnold said he thought the red would look better. Planning Director Johnson said their position was more on the roof material, not the color, as long as it matches and is consistent. Committee Member Arnold asked if staff required the applicant to submit plans with water requirements. Planning Director Johnson said the plans would have to comply with water requirements. CVWD criteria states "renovation work being done". If you are renovating you have to go back to CVWD for approval. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a new irrigation system proposed. Mr. Despras said it was already in with a drip emitter system. Committee Member Arnold asked if the applicant was only replacing shrubs and trees where the previous landscaping had to be replaced. Mr. Despras said yes and pointed out what would be replaced as the previous tenant had not taken care of the landscaping. Committee Member Arnold asked how they would be watered. Mr. Despras said most would be on drip emitters and others would have bubblers. Mr. Nicholas Despras had a question about the tower and asked if there was roof style that would tie things in more closely. Mr. Pollakusky said there were three possibilities: 1) slump it, 2) put up a parapet, or 3) build something around the top. He asked if the Committee had any other ideas. Planning Director Johnson said he was looking at it from the viewpoint of the display model. He said if you have the appropriate roof design you can keep the focus on the entry. He suggested it might be done in such a way with windows that mimicked what was proposed on the end. It would draw the eye to the entrance. He said it was really up to the Committee. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was looking for something that would conform more with the Village Guidelines rather than putting in something only as a cover up. He asked about articulating parapets, and additional suggestions to address the design style in the Village Design Guidelines. He said this was an exceptional opportunity for an architect to do something very nice. He was not saying the design style used was wrong or bad, but wanted to keep the uniqueness of the Village. Committee Member Arnold said if the Village Design Guidelines were utilized more in the entrance area it will bring more people in. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant wanted the Committee to go through staff's recommendations one -by -one. Mr. Nicholas Despras said yes. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said they had already discussed the entry tower and would not go over Recommendation No. 1 again. The problem was already resolved with Recommendation No-. 2. Staff's recommendation on No. 3 would be to change the pitch. Committee Member Arnold said they would lose their tongue and groove ceiling. Committee Member Bobbitt said they would have to change the back pitch. Mr. Pollakusky said all they're trying to do is duplicate what is right across the street. it 1. simple, it's framing. He does not like the idea of two different pitches. Discussion followed regarding the need for a parapet wall as well as trim options. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked, regarding Recommendation No. 4, where the exhaust fans were. Mr. Despras explained where they were. Committee Member Arnold asked if there was any problem with screening them. Mr. Despras said they have to comply with Fire Department regulations. Planning Director Johnson said they do not stick out and can be painted to match. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said regarding No. 5 - the plans will be stamped in Building and Safety. The changes will be addressed by that Department. He was concerned about some of the renovations, but Mr. Pollakusky explained they have been changed to be in compliance with the Building & Safety Department regulations. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said Recommendation No. 6 includes the statement "...stamped by a licensed landscape architect." Staff stated these plans were acceptable going through this level of the process, but the final plans would have to be stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 9 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Staff said the ALRC will get the final landscape plans and they would be signed and stamped by a landscape architect. Planning Director Johnson added they did not require them for this meeting since this was a renovation. Mr. Despras questioned whether they still needed a sidewalk, since it is quite an expense. Planning Director Johnson said Public Works was still reviewing this and have not taken a final position on this. It is a matter that would be addressed at the Planning Commission as an entitlement matter. Mr. Despras said there was quite a bit of work that would need to be done to accommodate the sidewalk. Staff replied they understood this and are working with Public Works. Public Works is currently looking into it and has been asked to take into consideration the present infrastructure and the large tree that may have to be removed. Staff said they will let ALRC know, in advance, of the Planning Commission date. Committee Member Bobbitt said he did not have a problem with the parapet issue. He pointed out some items on the elevation plans he did have concerns about. He had a question regarding the window design and Mr. Pollakusky said they were going to go for the pane look all the way across. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said even after the recommendations he is still concerned about the composition and format of the drawings. He was concerned about the page numbering system and the consistency of the arrow direction on each page, as well as no index. Mr. Pollakusky said everything is numbered. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was confused as to where the information was taken from. He explained how the plans could confuse Committee Members when they do not have a key. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said there was no distinction between the doors and windows that are currently on the building and those that would be added. Mr. Pollakusky said they were marked as "existing" and "new". Committee Member Arnold said he would like to see the final landscape plans and plant palette, as it sounded like there would be some mature trees put in, which would be very nice. Planning Manager David Sawyer stated, for clarification purposes, the recommendations staff has made, and that the Committee has reviewed, are all okay with the exception of numbers 2 and 3 with the addition of the word Final in Recommendation No. 6. Ito] Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee March 19, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the design was ready to go forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pollakusky said they would like to go to the Planning Commission with the re -design. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant could change these designs and bring them back. Planning Director Johnson explained the ALRC was only a recommending body and would only see the designs one time. He told the client the Committee was recommending they look at the Village Design Guidelines and make appropriate changes. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-010, recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2008-040, as recommended and amended: a. Delete Recommendations numbered 2 and 3. b. Client should review the Village Design Guidelines and make appropriate revisions. C. Recommendation No. 6 be amended to read: "Final landscape and irrigation plans for additional landscaping shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect." d. Applicant to make adjustments to plan sets as discussed by the Committee. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on April 2, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1:33 a.m. on March 19, 2008. Respectfully submitted, CAROLYN WALKER Executive Secretary 11 BI #A oTAtf 4 S C�yOF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 21, 2008 CASE NO: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN 2008-033 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: VITA REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE MADISON CLUB VILLAS FRONT YARD TYPICAL AND COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING LOCATION: WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB; SOUTH OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF MADISON STREET, WEST OF MONROE STREET PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of review of these final landscaping plans is for the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee to review and verify that the submitted plans are consistent with the previously -approved preliminary landscaping plans and are in compliance with all conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The Madison Club Villas, a residential project located on a 14.5-acre site at the intersection of Meriwether Way and Humboldt Boulevard within the Madison Club residential community (Attachment 1), received tentative tract map and site development permit approval by City Council on September 18, 2007 (Tentative Tract Map 34968, Site Development Permit 2007-888). The project consists of 19 private residential lots and one lettered lot to be used as a lake and putting golf course. Tentative Tract Map 34968 condition of approval #57 requires that the final landscaping plans be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits (Attachment 2). On August 1, 2007, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee originally reviewed the preliminary common area landscaping plans, and unanimously recommended to Planning Commission approval of the project. Subsequently, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved the project without any significant changes to the proposal. ANALYSIS The submitted final landscaping plans (Attachment 3) before you are consistent with the preliminary landscaping plans submitted as part of Site Development Permit 2007- 888. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the preliminary plans and conditions of approval as recommended by the ALRC and proposed no significant changes. The proposed landscaping palette and design, including irrigation, lighting, and fence design, is consistent with all prior approvals, and the assorted species of plants are taken from the plant list in the approved Specific Plan. The plans have been stamped approved by a certified landscape architect, the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, and the Coachella Valley Water District, and are in compliance with water efficiency standards set by the CVWD and stated in LQMC Section 8.13 Water Efficient Landscaping. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee adopt a minute motion recommending to the Planning Director approval of Final Landscaping Plan 2008-033 for the Madison Club Villas, as the plans are consistent with the preliminary landscaping plans submitted as part of Site Development Permit 2007-888, and are in compliance with all conditions of approval as adopted by City Council on September 18, 2007. Prepared by: JAY WUU, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Madison Club Villas Conditions of Approval 3. Madison Club Villas Final Landscaping Plans ATTACHMENT 1 to Phoenix io T North r`a 11 8 48th Avenue �G 86 50th Avenue Coalla En nal rt rt rt � �f 52nd Avenue En • 53rd Avenue 86 The Madison Club Airport Blvd ATTACHMENT 2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007-085 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 UTILITIFS 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 51, The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. 53. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 54. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 55. The applicant shall .provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 56. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007-085 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 18. 2007 retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 57. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the Planning Director. 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 59. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 51" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. PUBLIC SERVICES 60. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 61. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 62, The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such La�� 5 CEyOF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 21, 2008 CASE NO: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN 2008-037 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE SITE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND AVENUE 50; WITHIN THE LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of review of these final landscaping plans is for the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee to review and verify that the submitted plans are consistent with the previously -approved preliminary landscaping plans and are in compliance with all conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The La Quinta Country Club, bounded by Eisenhower Drive on the north and west, Washington Street on the east, and Avenue 50 on the south, was established in 1959 as a private golf club (Attachment 1). The original clubhouse site, located on the northeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, suffered significant foundation and structural damage during a 2005 earthquake. The City of La Quinta subsequently condemned the building, and declared the site unsafe. The clubhouse has since been demolished and replaced by a temporary facility. The new La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse received specific plan and site development permit approval by City Council on August 7, 2007 (Specific Plan 07- 082, Site Development Permit 2007-885). Site Development Permit 2007-885 condition of approval #51 requires that the final landscaping plans be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits (Attachment 2). On June 6, 2007, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee originally reviewed the preliminary common area landscaping plans, and unanimously recommended to Planning Commission approval of the project. Subsequently, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved the project without any significant changes to the proposal, subject to the following select landscaping -related conditions of approval: 1. Final landscaping plans for the proposed development shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. 2. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping, in the form of mature trees and/or palms, on the western end of the maintenance yard (near the wash down station), in the landscaped area outside of the perimeter wall along Eisenhower Drive. The applicant shall also provide additional mature landscaping in the same area outside of the perimeter wall near the west -facing clubhouse building elevation. 3. The applicant shall install mature trees, shrubs, and groundcover on the earthern berm along the Avenue 50 perimeter, as failure to do so may result in safety and visual concerns. ANALYSIS The submitted final landscaping plans before you are consistent with the preliminary landscaping plans submitted as part of Site Development Permit 2007-885. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the preliminary plans and conditions of approval as recommended by the ALRC and proposed no significant changes. The plans do not entirely comply with the above -mentioned conditions of approval; however, subsequent to a meeting with the Planning Department, landscape architect, and project manager, the applicant has submitted a letter stating that measures will be taken to achieve compliance with the conditions of approval and preliminary landscaping plan (Attachment 3). These measures include replacing the 24" box trees on Avenue 50 with mature 36" — 48" boxes, and slightly redesigning the corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive in order to more adequately screen the project interior. With these added measures, and subsequent to sight -distance review by the Public Works department, the Planning Department has no comments or issues with the submitted plans and found them to be in accordance with the existing conditions of approval and conceptual landscaping plans submitted and approved during the site development permit process. The proposed landscaping palette and design, including irrigation, lighting, and fence design, is consistent with all prior approvals, and the assorted species of plants are taken from the plant list in the approved Specific Plan. The plans have been stamped approved by a certified landscape architect, the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, and the Coachella Valley Water District, and are in compliance with water efficiency standards set by the CVWD and stated in LQMC Section 8.13 Water Efficient Landscaping (Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee adopt a minute motion recommending to the Planning Director approval of Final Landscaping Plan 2008-037 for the La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse, as the plans are consistent with the preliminary landscaping plans submitted as part of Site Development Permit 2007- 885, and are in compliance with all conditions of approval as adopted by City Council on August 7, 2007. Prepared by: � !tOW JAY WUU, A sociate Planner Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Conditions of Approval 3. Letter dated May 12, 2008 stating changes to Final Landscaping Plan 4. La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse Final Landscaping Plans ` ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAP A ATTACHMENT 2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2007-078 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-885 LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB AUGUST 7, 2007 CONSTRUCTION 47. The City will conduct final inspection of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 48. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 49. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 50. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 51. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director and shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the Planning Director. 52. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 53. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right- of-way. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2007-078 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-885 LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB AUGUST 7, 2007 54. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping, in the form of mature trees and/or palms, on the western end of the maintenance yard (near the wash down station), in the landscaped area outside of the perimeter wall along Eisenhower Drive. The applicant shall also provide additional mature landscaping in the same area outside of the perimeter wall near the west -facing clubhouse building elevation. 55. The applicant shall install mature trees, shrubs, and groundcover on the earthern berm along the Avenue 50 perimeter consistent with the preliminary landscaping plans. Tree size shall be a minimum 36" — 48" box. PUBLIC SERVICES 56, The applicant shall provide public transit improvements to the existing Bus Stop on Avenue 50 as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. Additionally, an ADA accessible sidewalk shall be provided to the Club House facility proposed under this Site Development Permit as approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 58. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 59. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 60. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As -Built" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the ATTACHMENT 3 May 12, 2008 Mr. Les Johnson, Planning Director City of La Quinta PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247 Re: La Quinta Country Club Dear Les: [TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC i S & SITE P LANN I N G MAY 12 2008 CITY OF LA OUINTA Pursuant to our meeting at your office on Thursday of last week, I am providing a list of changes we have agreed to make to our landscape architectural plans for the above project: 1. The slope area just south of the proposed steps east of the clubhouse entry porte cochere exceeds a 3:1 slope, and is actually a 2 %A slope. We'll address the increased likelihood of erosion by specifying a larger aggregate gravel or small fractured cobble for this area. 2. The trees currently indicated as 24" box on the berm along Ave. 50 are instead to be a combination of 36" box and 48" box per the conditions of approval. It is understood that the approximate height of the trees is to be 12' at time of installation. 3. Parkway planting at corner of Ave. 50 and Eisenhower and along Eisenhower Drive: We have provided an enlargement of this area (please see attached) to indicate the proposed changes in this area. Two African Sumacs are to be changed to Palo Verde 'Desert Museum Hybrids' and relocated to the Eisenhower parkway. We will additionally add two more of the same Palo Verde trees to fill gaps in the existing landscaping. The existing date palms at the corner are to remain as they are. 4. The mound indicated at the west side of the clubhouse will be removed. I hope I've covered the items we had discussed. Please give me a call at your convenience if you need any further clarification. Sincerely, ARCHITECTS, INC. President RG/bc 0 • • OS gnN3AV n .Zz` i� os anvanV 1 n L 1L I ❑J Av U, ILS y O U1 Q Q Q a W 3 TO 1 z d) w a W 0 u _z nQ LL } � 3 U� O (�Q N_ q 1L >q- z 'a g0 BI #C O� S� OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: MAY 21, 2008 FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN (FLP) 08-030 TARLOS & ASSOCIATES TARLOS & ASSOCIATES REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR SOUPLANTATION SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPOT DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 The Souplantation restaurant will be located within the Komar Desert Center on Pad J which is located at the southwest corner of Depot Drive and Highway 111 (Attachment 1). In addition to the Souplantation plan, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) has reviewed site development plans for the majority of the remaining Komar Center pads including those for Costco Wholesale, Mimi's Cafe (Pad G) and the seven general retail buildings north of Costco (Pads A, B, C, D, E, F, H,). On October 24, 2007, the ALRC reviewed and recommended approval to the Planning Commission the architectural design and preliminary landscaping for the Souplantation restaurant (SDP 2007-892). The action included recommended conditions of approval as noted by the ALRC which included the addition of two trees along the building's south elevation and the substitution of the Texas Rangers along the building's north elevation with a shrub more representative of the plants shown in the submitted Building Elevations. These changes were incorporated into the Preliminary Landscape Plan prior to it's submittal for review by the Planning Commission. On November 13, 2007, the Planning Commission, with consideration of ALRC and Staff's recommendations along with public input received at the meeting, approved the application subject to a number of conditions of approval which are attached as Attachment 2. Included in the Conditions of Approval is Condition No. 39 which requires the Final Landscape Plan be reviewed by the ALRC prior to approval by the FLP 08-030 Souplantation (ALRC Staff Report) Final Planning Director. PROPOSAL: The Final Landscaping Plan (Attachment 3) identifies plant species, size and locations, details regarding staking of trees, spacing of ground cover, and irrigation improvements. In general, the planting legend includes three different types of 24-inch box trees and seven types of water -efficient shrubs. The groundcover is identified as "Palm Springs Gold" decomposed granite. ANALYSIS: Compliance with Approved Preliminary Landscape Plan Staff has reviewed the submitted Final Landscape Plan and the plant species, size, and locations comply with the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Although, the groundcover identified in the Final Landscape Plan (decomposed granite) matches that in the Preliminary Landscape Plan, Staff notes there has been a change in the primary groundcover used within the center's parking areas, which have been installed with a crushed rock material. In light of this change and to promote continuity within the parking areas, the Final Landscaping Plan shall be adjusted to reflect the use of crushed rock within the parking landscape islands to match that used in the other parking landscape islands. All other areas identified as decomposed granite shall remain as shown on the Final Landscape Plan and thus be consistent with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan. Compliance with Approved Conditions of Approval Condition No. 43 requires the applicant to provide a bicycle parking rack on -site in a shaded location. As submitted, the Final Landscape Plan does not include such an amenity. In response to Staff's notation of this requirement, the applicant has provided a separate attachment indicating the location of the bicycle parking rack (Attachment 4). The Final Landscape Plan has been signed by a licensed landscape architect and, with the addition of Attachment 4, is in compliance with the Conditions of Approval applicable for this stage of review and approval. Compliance with standard Code requirements The Final Landscape Plan meets the requirements of the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance and has been approved by both the Coachella Valley Water District (as FLP 08-030 Souplantation (ALRC Staff Report) Final stamped on the submitted plan sheets) and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner (Approval letter attached as Attachment 5). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee adopt a minute motion recommending to the Planning Director approval of Final Landscaping Plan 2008-030 for the Souplantation restaurant, as the plan is consistent with the Preliminary Landscaping Plan submitted as part of Site Development Permit 2007-892, and is in compliance with the related conditions of approval adopted by Planning Commission Resolution 2007-045. Prepared =flANCO Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Related Conditions of Approval 3. Final Landscaping Plan 4. Site Plan with Bicycle Parking Rack 5. Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner Approval Letter FLP 08-030 Souplantation (ALRC Staff Report) Final ATTACHMENT 1 :I a 0 rl U. { y 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Resolution 2007-45 Conditions of Approval- FINAL Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13. 2007 maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, and pavement markings. 33. All trash enclosures shall have a color and finish consistent with the building. 34. Any building mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view by an architectural feature, wall, or parapet of sufficient height to fully screen such equipment above its horizontal plane. 35. All building colors and materials shall be consistent with the remainder of the buildings within Komar Desert Center. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 36. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 37. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. Measures shall be taken to replace and repair any landscaping or irrigation equipment which is damaged. 38. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 39. 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 and the Coachella Valley Water District's Landscaping and Irrigation Design Ordinance. 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. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Note: Final landscaping plans are not approved for construction until approved Page 8 of 13 (✓ Planning Commission Resolution 2007-45 Conditions of Approval- FINAL Site Development Permit 2007-892 Tarlos and Associates (Souplantation) November 13, 2007 and signed by the Planning Director. 40. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Spray irrigation shall be placed no closer than 24 inches to curbs along public streets. 41. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5"' Edition or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 42. Should any landscaping utilized for screening purposes be deemed insufficient by the Planning Director following an initial period of growth, the applicant shall replace or provide additional landscaping with significant foliage. 43. Tubular -steel "ribbon -type" or other securable, foundation -inset bicycle parking racks shall be provided, large enough to accommodate at least three bicycles, as per Section 9.150.060 of the Parking Ordinance. Bicycle racks shall be placed upon a hard surface in a shaded location out of the way of pedestrian flows. Final placement shall be approved by the Planning Department. QUALITY ASSURANCE 44, The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer, 45. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 46, The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 47. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by Page 9 of 13 0 E- o F U II II I I I v I I N II I I — C a� 0o �a � o¢ m� W za } Y U U m Q L m O C'3 z O Y Q U CL O _ J -1 'I V N 0 moo �O iw 2 O 00 � If,o 0 � � cw �� Or U�LU U=O K cn O co Z cnN0C.�0 O6 } Q O Z Z �Ln a N J O Y Y OO II O O U-U CDQQ oa - C N b'321V 031�= ATTACHMENT 4 mm 30 llWll 2008-Mar-11 11:26 AM AG COMM. DEPT OF WEIGHTS AND M 7608637, ATTACHMENT 5 Date: 3/5--/015 OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 82-675HIGHWAY ttt, RM 14 INDIO, CA 92201 PHONE (760) 863-8291 FAX (750) 863-7702 Landscape Plan Check Application Developers Name: Tsr�crnd /4--s:-c,4k-r Case#: PC R5 031/08B (Assigned by AgiwlWol Ikpt) Address: 17Z8o--. H i k k eJ I Nook Telephone Number: (9Y9) 2e50- ` 1 / 7 Fax Number: ") 2S O -- /6 74 Development Name: 50!! f )o 74i on a} 4. kwnar D" { Ca • r- Address: 77�os La Projec[Manager: �rlva ' f�S3oera�e-r Ai•fh: Mo.rk Telephone Ntmlber: (9 49) A50 - 41 ( '7 Fax Number: (4 41) Z5V —/6 y-G E-Mail: der-& 4-or]03. Ceps Estimate of Landscape Project's Start Date: t; /30 Air Dear Developer: After reviewing your landscaping plans, all plant material listed is not in violation of quarantine laws governing the Coachella Valley. If substitutions do occur and they differ from plant material listed, this office must be notified immediately. Thank you for helping to protect and preserve agriculture in the Coachella Valley. 46116v Approved de' Denied Agricultural Commissioner's Offs e cc: Indio and Riverside