1998 10 20 ALRC/ T
Lai
oz D
s
cFM OF'CNty
REVIEW C®MVIITTEE
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 20, 1998
9:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 98-006
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
A. Approval of the September 14, 1998 Minutes.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Case ........................
Applicant ..................
Location ...................
Request ....................
Action ......................
ALRC/AGENDA
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-632
Century Crowell Communities
To be constructed in Tract 23773 (Starlight Dunes) north of
Fred Waring Drive and west of Adams Street
Approval of architectural plans for four new prototype
residential units
Minute Motion 98-
B. Case ........................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-633
Applicant ...................
TD Desert Development
Location ...................
Intersection of Casitas Drive and Cascadas Circle within
Rancho La Quinta
Request ....................
Approval of development plans for a golf clubhouse and
cart storage facility within Rancho La Quinta
Action ......................
Minute Motion 98-
C. Case ........................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-634
Applicant ................. Rielly Homes, Inc.
Location ................... To be constructed in Tract 28838 in Specific Plan 83-002
(PGA West) and part of Specific Plan 90-017 to the south,
on the east side of Madison Street, south of Airport
Boulevard
Request .................... Approval of architectural plans for six new prototype
residential units
Action ...................... Minute Motion 98-
D. Case ........................
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 98-001
Applicant ..................
JTL Property, Inc., James Lewis
Location ...................
East side of Eisenhower Drive, between Avenida
Montezuma and Avenida Martinez (51-230 Eisenhower
Drive)
Request ....................
Approval of development plans to remodel and construct
a 1050 square foot addition to a 2,438 square foot existing
building for use as a day spa and beauty salon
Action ......................
Minute Motion 98
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ALRC/AGENDA 4-+ V 0 V 002
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 14, 1998 10:00 A.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Committee was called to order at
10:24 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who lead the flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham.
C. Staff present: Assistant City Manager Mark Weiss, Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio and Secretary Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. There being no changes to the Minutes of August 24, 1998, it was moved and
seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to approve the minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. BUSINESS ITEM:
A. Site Development Permit 97-603 41; a request of Stamko for approval of the building
elevations and landscaping for three auto dealerships.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed his concern on the use of Date Palms
in the parking areas where there would be pedestrian traffic because of the
hazards that can be incurred by the trees. He would prefer to see the
Washingtonia Robusta.
Committee Member Cunningham stated he did not have a problem with the
landscaping. He deferred to Committee Member Bobbitt expertise regarding
species and uses. He did ask staff if the plans conformed to the Highway I 1 I
Design Guidelines.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSWLRC-9-14-98.wpd
".VU 003
4. Planning Manager di Iorio stated staffs concern was in maintaining the
objective of the Highway I I I Design Guidelines. Staff is recommending the
applicant stay within the plant palette listed in the Guidelines to retain the
desired landscaping for Highway 111. The other issue of concern to staff is
the tack of berming to shield the view into the dealerships from Highway I I I
and the use of retention basin along Highway 111. The applicant's plans are
not consistent with the Guidelines and the Zoning Code states: "....retention
shall only accommodate water falling within the fifty foot landscape and
right-of-way drainage as well, or retention, and not anything from the parking
lots." As proposed, the northern portion of each of the three auto dealerships
will drain into Highway 111 landscape setback.
5. Committee Member Cunningham clarified that the issues in front of the
Committee were the retention basin and the Highway I I I Guidelines. The
first issue, retention basin, is governed by the Zoning Ordinance and not
really a discussion for this Committee. The second issue is the Guidelines.
Planning Manager di Iorio replied this was correct.
6. Committee Member Cunningham stated that in regard to the Guidelines, it
was his understanding that the Guidelines were established to provide
direction for developers of what the City wants Highway I I I to look like, but
this is not necessarily cast in stone. In looking at the Auto Mall plans
consideration should be given to its location. From a historical standpoint,
up until 1990, the development on Highway I I I consisted of the Von's
Plaza; which had that early California look, that tied in with the La Quinta
Hotel, and Simon Motors. Then across the street was WalMart and
Albertsons with a more Southern California Contemporary Spanish look,
which is fairly standard. Now, we have that Early California look on one end
and then we start blending into more of what you normally see in Southern
California, the architectural look of the Spanish Contemporary. So, at one
end of the street is Simon Motors which has its cars where you can see them
from the street and is a flat area. Then you move on toward Eagle Hardware
which has all the landscaping and the berming in the front. Issues have been
brought up that the dealerships not look like Home Depot. I'm not so
opposed to the idea of it not being mounded as long as the landscaping ties
it: all together and creates a look that's cohesive. As to Guidelines, guidelines
are something to start with. I am not opposed to the fact that they do not have
berms, as long as the landscape ties together. This is a big complex. There
are a lot of things to take into consideration. The retention basin is another
issue.
7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Guidelines were approved since the
applicant initially submitted this project? Planning Manager di Iorio replied
that we had been working with the Guidelines at the time of the review of this
project last year.
C:AMy Documents\WPDOCSVALRC-9-14-98.wpd 2
8. Committee Member Bobbitt commented the architecture looked like every
other auto dealership. He tended to agree that Highway I I I was becoming
a little bit "hodge-podge", going from the Spanish architecture of Von's
down to the Home Depot center. As to the landscaping plans, they look fine,
except there appear to be a few too many trees in some of the areas along the
perimeter. He also commented that if he was the owner he would want the
area open and the cars visible. He did not think that an auto dealership,
inherently, as an ugly thing, but in Indio there are definitely some ugly auto
dealers. This would certainly be a vast improvement over those. As to the
retention basin, is it in an acceptable location or is staff requesting it to be
moved to the comer to have more room for mounding along that edge?
9. Planning Manager di Iorio replied this was the issue. The proposal is unable
is unable to provide additional mounding because the area is serving as a
retention basin for the site, the northern portion of the auto dealers.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff where this water would drains to?
11. Planning Manager di Iorio replied the drainage for Highway 111 goes into the
retention areas.
12. Mr. Chris Schultz said this was not correct for all three parcels. Highway I I I
is super elevated to the north side for Parcels 1, 2, 3. So, all the runoff on
Highway I I I is conveyed to the north side of the street and we don't pick up
any water from Highway III until we get to the next phase of the
development to the east. These three parcels do no have a requirement to
accept any Highway I I I runoff.
13. Committee Member Bobbitt said his question was how big are the retention
basins were, where they are to be located, and whether the water from these
parking areas exit the property onto to Highway I I I and then re-enter the
property?
14. Mr. Shultz explained that it would not; it was self-contained. The water
would be retained within the perimeter landscape setbacks.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that in regard to the architecture, he would
prefer something a little bit more Spanish. He's not going to fight this
design, it's a pretty typical auto dealership look to him.
16. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff if the issue with the landscaping
was specifically that it was not bermed in the front.
17. Ms. Chris Clarke, the applicant, explained they had designed the landscaping
in keeping with the Guidelines. She went on to give her concept of an auto
mall. In her opinion, an auto mall with flowering trees in the parking lots
does not work. If the wind blows anywhere within 40 feet of the cars they
C:\My Documents\WPDOCSV,LRC-9-14-98.wpd 3
40_V 110�
have dirty cars that are always in need of cleaning. What they did do was try
to accommodate flowering trees on the corners. We will be setback
tremendously. In comparison, in the last six months Cathedral City has taken
its walls down because they realized that they made a mistake. You don't put
auto malls behind walls where people cannot see them. As far as the
retention was concerned, as Chris Schultz, Project Engineer, will tell you, we
do not accept any water from Highway 111. We designed it in a way to
accept water from the north side and we will accept all the water on the rest
of the parcel. The problems with this site is that it falls off six -and -half -feet
just to here. So, it's very difficult to pull a berm up to a five foot berm or a
three foot berm because we've got to get back to grade down here and what's
driving us is Adams Street. What we did do was circle some areas where
potentially we can bring out some berming higher than it is. Again, we spent
a lot of time designing this and we understand what the City's Guidelines are,
but we also understand that this is a very different commercial site and cannot
be compared to an Eagle Hardware or Home Depot. It's an auto mall where
their product is sold from the parking lot and actually will look a lot better
with the new cars. Also, wherever you see the berms, whether they're two
foot berms or three foot berms you've got to remember on top of those berms
are going to be shrubbery so you can get to five feet. There are, however,
areas highlighted on the plans where we can create some larger berms.
18. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he could accept their argument about not
using the flowering trees versus the Mesquite. But the Mesquites can be
messy as well, and they have very tiny little leaves that get into every nook
and cranny of your car if you park under one or anywhere near it. He did not
believe this was a viable alternative. In addition, the Mesquite trees can
blowing over and cause problems, especially with the drip irrigation system,
they do not tend to root very well and can be high maintenance.
19. Ms. Clarke stated she would be open to any alternative nonflowering trees.
The last thing the dealers want are messy or high maintenance trees.
20. Mr. Shepardson, landscape architect for the project, commented that
blooming trees cause more of a problem from staining than the Mesquite
leaves. Their watering system for the Mesquites are deep to promote a deep
root growth to avoid the toppling of trees which you can have from surface
watering. There are things we are trying to do that will help to curb the issues
brought up by the Committee. We are trying to keep consistent with
somewhat of a desert theme. This is why we are using Blue Palo Verdes as
our flowering tree and the Mesquites as our non -flowering tree. There are not
too many trees that you'll find that are clean, perfect trees unless you get into
the silk varieties.
21. Committee Member Bobbitt replied that his point was well taken. People are
continually asking him for trees that are not messy and he is yet to come up
with one He continued by commenting on the proximity of the trees to the
cars. He stated that some of the trees were going to have fairly big cckyies O
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\A.LRC-9-14-98.wpd 4
and without maintenance. The problem is that the applicant can plant what
the City requires and after the fact they can trim them back till they are only
twigs and stumps which also defeats the City's goal.
22. Mr. Shepardson replied that maintenance was a key issue. Money would
have to be spent to protect their investment, but some people don't realize
that and will go with the cheapest bid and worst look.
23. Committee Member Bobbitt asked where the City stood on the flowering
trees. He had read staff s recommendations and the Highway 111 Guidelines
called for more flowering trees but, asked if there was a compromise. Could
the trees be planted- in such a manner that they did not overhang on the cars
or, maintained in such a manner that they did not rot directly over the cars.
As the prevailing winds usually travel west to east, they most likely would
not have a problem with the leaves.
24. Committee Member Cunningham asked if there reasoning for using the
Mesquites was because it was the lesser of the evils? Mr. Shepardson replied
it was consistent with the theme they were trying to create.
25. Committee member Cunningham asked if the Mesquite trees were on the
Guidelines. Mr. Shepardson relied they were not.
26. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested the applicant consider the Chillensas.
They do drop a bean pods, don't blow around, and would not get on the cars.
He did not believe that would achieve anything by using a Mesquite tree. He
would prefer to see a tree with a larger leaf, and from a maintenance
standpoint, it would be easier to keep a car clean with something that has a
larger leaf.
27. Mr. Shepardson commented that most trees within the desert palette are small
leaved, unless you use something that is a little more lush in character.
28. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he did not have a problem with the
Mesquite, but they can be a maintenance problem. He was torn between what
the City Guidelines required and the maintenance of the landscaping.
29. Committee Member Cunningham asked why the Mesquite trees were not
included in the Guidelines? There are other trees on the Guidelines that are
non -flowering.
30. Planning Manager di Iorio answered that all the trees noted in the Guidelines
are flowering. The original concept is to have the trees flower at different
times of the year. It is up to the applicant to do a mixture to achieve a look
that has some variety of trees that will flower all year long.
C:AMy Documents\WPDOCSVALRC-9-14-98.wpd too.0 �+
31. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the trees could be relocated to
accomplish both goals. Mr. Shepardson commented that one problem was
the locations on top of the berms was where most of their signage was to be
placed. If trees are planted there, you will blocking the signage and create
another problem. Discussion followed as to alternative sites for the
landscaping.
32. Mr. Shepardson continued that a lot of thought was put into the natural
movement of the site and where the locations of the display areas versus the
new car parking spaces were located.
33. Committee Member Cunningham stated he liked the concept of the site and
the appearance of the higher display pads.
34. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the pads were not higher, but were at curb
level.
35. Mr. Shepardson corrected her saying they could be as much as a foot higher
than the lot behind them.
36. Chris Clarke commented that the Specific Plan limits the height of the display
pads to 12" from the grade. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the applicant
had not planned on utilizing the elevation change due to safety issues. Ms.
Clarke agreed saying the dealerships do not want people falling off their
display pads.
37. Committee Member Cunningham restated that the pads were up about 12"
and then you drop back down to grade. Mr. Shepardson gave an overview of
the landscaping site.
38. Committee Member Cunningham stated he agreed with the Guideline, and
the berming was good, but the entire project needs to be looked at to create
an overall blending affect. He did not believe the applicants were that far
outside of what should happen at this site. He felt the project looked good.
He agreed with Committee Member Bobbitt that he would prefer to see an
Early California Colonial or Spanish architecture, but that whole theme got
lost right after the Von's Plaza. The other developments did not carry on
with this theme and in his estimation, you can't ask the applicant to continue
on with a theme that others did not follow. He went on to point out that the
Torre Nissan building looks a lot like the Desert Sands Unified School
District building. He then went on to discuss the areas with the flowering
trees. He asked if there were a number of flowering trees that were part of
this project? Planning Manager di Iorio replied they have two trees at each
of the intersections which are Palo Verdes and are showing an Acacia tree
on Highway I I I and Adams Street and those are the trees that the applicant
noted as using and there are about eight of them that are flowering.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC-9-14-98.wpd 4.d.0 O O Q 6
39. Mr. Stephenson went on to give a detailed explanation of where the trees
were located on the site.
40. Chris Clarke explained that most of the flowering trees were located on the
perimeter of the site.
41. Planning Manager di Iorio told the Committee Members that when the
Guidelines were written the areas at the intersections were to be Palm Trees
because that signifies a driveway and/or intersection. The flowering trees are
then incorporated into the major portion of the project.
42. Mr. Stephenson noted that the Palm Trees were to be a back drop into those
intersections.
43. Planning Manager di Iorio stated that was true. She also mentioned other
developments that have conformed with the Guidelines where each corner
treatment is with Palm Trees for the entry into the project, or signal, and then
the remainder are the flowering trees.
44. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant if this was what they
had done. Mr. Stephenson replied that they did not have the Palm Trees
shown on the landscaping plan displayed. They took them off because they
were on site. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they planned to keep
the Palm Trees as part of the theme. Discussion followed about the Palm
Trees.
45. Committee Member Cunningham stated he supported the Highway I I I
Guidelines. However, he believes that each project should be looked at on an
individual basis. In this instance, the applicant had done a very good job with
respect to berming and not berming and he believed their reasons for not
berming were justified. He appreciated Ms. Clarke's willingness to include
in their conditions that the area adjacent to Highway 1 I 1 is not to be used as
a storage area for the overflow of cars, but strictly for the new car display.
The City can require the berming and hide the cars, but being good business
people, you are going to need to find a way to get those cars up in the sight
of those passing by. It is going to be a constant battle to get the cars in sight.
Why not deal with the problem in the beginning? I don't think that the
Guidelines in this specific situation, are appropriate. I think that we should
be able to get the landscaping down to where the cars can be seen. Mr.
Stephenson pointed out there was retention and the berming look. He would
like to make it a free flowing plan that continues to adhere to the Guidelines.
46. Committee Member Cunningham reminded the Committee that the retention
basin was another issue separate from the landscaping. The retention basin
guidelines are now governed by City Ordinance. Mr. Stephenson advised the
Committee they were providing retention.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\A.LRC-9-14-98.wpd q•I_(J 000 7
v
47. Committee Member Cunningham questioned the placement of the retention,
in that the City Ordinance required retention to be on -site. Planning
Manager di Iorio confirmed this.
48. Planning Manager di Iorio asked the Committee Members to look at Page 3
of the staff report, to go through some of the recommendations to change or
delete them. These recommendations would be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for their review. The first condition recommends changing the
plant list to be consistent with the Highway I I I Guidelines and the applicant
has stated she would be willing to work with staff. Do you want to retain that
condition or is that something that you want to have removed? Under
Landscaping, on Page 3 of the staff report, item number I recommends
elimination of the plants not listed in the Highway I I I Design Guidelines
plant palette. The applicant has proposed barrel cactus, and yuccas, and they
are not part of the Guidelines. The Committee needs to decide if they want
to keep staff s recommendation or delete it.
49. Mr. Shepardson interjected that their plant materials are not obnoxious plant.
It is very consistent with the look they are trying to establishing and the look
that is established in other newer developments along Highway 111.
50. Ms. Clarke asked if she could get a copy of the Highway I I I Design
Guidelines as she believed her copy was not the final approved version.
Planning Manager di Iorio stated the applicant had agreed to work with staff
to resolve the plant material issue
51. Planning Manager di Iorio went on to the next point: "Replace the Hybrid
Mesquite trees with the flowering trees listed in the Highway 1 I 1 Guidelines
plant palette. Double the number of trees proposed along Highway I I L" Is
this the consensus of the Committee or is staff to modify, or delete this
recommendation?
52. Committee Member Cunningham recommended the Hybrid Mesquite trees
be accepted due to the issues raised and no other alternative has been
provided.
53. Planning Manager di Iorio acknowledged Committee Member Cunningham's
remarks and asked Committee Member Bobbitt if he concurred.
54. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that after hearing their argument, he
would agree with their request as long as the trees are maintained in such a
manner. The other issue is whether or not the number of trees along Highway
111 is sufficient? Discussion followed as to the location of trees.
55. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the sidewalk was standard in regard to
its setback from the street? Planning Manager di Iorio replied not
necessarily. They based it upon their retention areas and how it works.
Committee Member Bobbin commented that some of the areas were wider,
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC-9-14-98.wpd f.1-f! , 01 8
and could accommodate the trees, but you're going to run into problems if
you try to get any trees in the parkway. They will eventually grow out into
the street. Discussion followed about Cal Trans and the 12 foot right-of-way
and limitations. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping
56. Following discussion, Planning Manager di Iorio suggested changing the
Condition #2 bullet point to read:
Replace the Hybrid Mesquite trees with the flowering trees listed in
the Highway I II Design Guidelines plant palette. Increase the
number of trees proposed along Highway 111, where appropriate.
57. Mr. Shepardson commented this was going to highlight and open up your
view to these display areas. It will have Palm Trees on either side and then
be brought down in scale with the density of the Mesquite trees and then open
back up to give a view of each of the display areas. It is not consistent all
along which I think is the City's concern that the whole strip was going to be
display area.
58. Committee Member Cunningham commented on the fact that the cars would
be silhouetted by the planting of the trees which is quite attractive.
59. Planning Manager di Iorio asked about Condition #3 regarding berming and
asked if the Committee Members wish to delete the section. Committee
Member Cunningham asked if the berming was separate from the retention
issue. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the issue is they are tied together
because of the need for the retention.
60. Mr. Chris Schultz stated he disagreed because the retention and berming
occur in different locations. The retention is actually a by-product of creating
a view corridor to your special display areas. Planning Manager di Iorio
replied that because of the retention you will have to take space from the
northern portion of the site which does limit your ability to do more berming.
Mr. Shultz replied that was not necessarily true. The retention was just a by-
product of creating the low point to see the display areas. We don't have any
retention where we have the berming. Planning Manager di Iorio stated there
was a certain amount of retention they would have to accommodate because
they would be bringing the water off -site. Discussion followed regarding the
berming and retention.
61. Committee Member Cunningham asked to finish his statement. We're
turning into a berming issue, but we've also talked about limiting the height
of the berms so it doesn't effect what we're trying to accomplish with the site.
62. Planning Manager di Iorio asked if there were areas where the applicant
already had looked at to be able to increase the height of the berm? Mr.
Shultz stated this was true.
1
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC-9-14-98.wpd 019
63. Ms. Clarke stated that. anywhere we would increase the berming is not where
the low points are because they are going to naturally bring that area down to
keep the display pads in view. They did not want anything in front of them.
Where we would increase the berming has to do with the highlighted areas
which is where the berming is anyway. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this
was where the City wanted to have the retention; not in front of the display
areas, but as screening for the regular display area.
64. Committee Member Cunningham thought it might be beneficial to use
another term as retention was not the issue. Mr. Shepardson replied that it
was a by-product.
65. Committee Member Cunningham stated that it all comes to down to
compliance with the Ordinance. The applicant will have to look and see how
they can comply.
66. Planning Manager di Iorio reiterated that it was staff s position that the
applicant had not complied with the Ordinance. More berming was needed
to comply with the Ordinance.
67. Committee Member Cunningham stated the berming and retention areas will
have to be consistent with the Highway I I 1 Guidelines and Zoning Code.
68. Attorney Carol May asked if they could look at a copy of the Ordinance.
Planning Manager di Iorio stated she would supply them with a copy, but it
was the same as what was contained Highway I I I Guidelines. Discussion
followed regarding compliance with the Ordinance
69. Following discussion, Committee Member Cunningham stated that as far as
this Committee stands, they approved of the project as submitted with respect
to the berming and retention.
70. Planning Manager di Iorio asked about the Committee Member's
recommendation on the building elevations. Staff had some minor design
changes they were requesting under the Building Elevations. Is there a
recommendation for any of those, or was the Committee recommending the
buildings as proposed?
71. Committee Member Cunningham asked staff to explain what their purpose
was in requiring the wainscotting.
72. Planning Manager di Iorio stated the issue was one of visibility into the site
and maintain some individuality for each of the buildings. Staff was
requesting minor design additions to each of the buildings. One suggestion
was to provide a trellis element over the vehicle display areas at the northwest
corner of Parcel 1. A second was a change in building materials on the north
C:\My Documents\ W PDOCSV\LRC-9-14-98.wpd
$_a" 1 012
10
elevation to a different block material at the base of the building to give a
different type of texture to the building. This is primarily for the Chrysler
Center.
73. Ms. Clarke asked if she was recommending the trellis on the northwest corner
because this site slopes down six feet to that point, causing you to look down
into it. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was true.
74. Ms. Clarke stated staff was trying to design the site so the vehicle display
area was not visible as it is an unusual site, unlike the other dealerships. The
Chrysler site is 12 feet below the other sites by the time the building is
constructed and that is why staff is recommending it there instead of anyplace
else.
75. Planning Manager di Iorio stated her concern was visibility and not just
parking at this site. Everything needs to work together as viewed from
Highway 111. That was why staff was recommending a trellis to this project
site.
76. Mr. Tom Walker, architect for the project, stated that as far as the wainscot
was concerned, he did not see the reason for it, but it's not a difficult thing to
do. It changes the design concept to something we did not intend it to be. I
know there's a lot of commercial projects around with these wainscots that
are different colors than the rest of the building, but that's not what we were
trying to do. If we have to, we have to. As far as the trellis is concerned, we
would be strongly against it. To begin with, there is a six foot wall behind
that area that screens off the rear yard and you would not be looking over that
wall.
77. Planning Manager di Iorio pointed out the wall on the plans along Adams
Street and then along the project area. Staff s concern is the view into the
site.
78. Committee Member Bobbitt expressed the fact that he didn't understand the
need for the trellis. He asked if it would resemble the trellis over the Civic
Center parking lot and would it be for shade.
79. Planning Manager di Iorio replied it was shade for the vehicle display, to
break up the view into the site because you're looking down into the cars.
Staff is not recommending wood necessarily. These are contemporary
buildings with industrial -type materials. You can introduce metal, or some
other type of material, and have a nice structure.
80. Committee Member Cunningham stated that regardless of the expense, it
appears to create more clutter. The openness is better and the trellis appears
to tighten up the site.
4_0 : 1
CAMy Documen01 ts\WPDOCS\ALRC-9-14-98.wpd 11 M,
81. Mr. Walker stated he agreed and suggested they look at the landscape plan as
he thought the trees had an effect on the site as well.
82. Committee Member Cunningham stated he agreed. The landscaping softened
the wall and the trellis created more clutter. He could not agree with
recommending the trellis.
83. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he too agreed and did not see the need for
the trellis.
84. Committee Member Cunningham stated the wall was a split face block and
asked if it would be painted.
85. Mr. Walker stated the split face block would be painted. In addition, they had
two textures that could be used. One has a machine -applied plaster on the
upper portion, with a texture below which would be a slightly different color
than the upper portion.
86. Committee Member Cunningham stated that this part of the building is not
an area that you would want to draw attention to and when you add
wainscoting to something you're bringing attention to it.
87. Mr. Walker asked staff where they were recommending the tile band.
88. Planning Manager di Iorio stated staff was recommending was to have the tile
band carried around, starting at the service area, then carrying it around the
roof element and the machine -applied plaster to the front to add some color.
89. Mr. Walker stated this was a recessed area. Recessed all the way around,
even on the service building. It is going to give you a slight shadow between
the plaster and block walls.
90. Committee Member Cunningham stated he was not a proponent of using tile
bands as they did not have a long life. It appears they have created the effect
by bringing the band around and creating a shadow line around the building.
The building's low enough and it does not need any more. More detail is
going to bring it even lower.
91. Planning Manager di Iorio asked about the other tile insets on the Mazda
Superstore. Staff was recommending the addition of the cantilever to provide
more shadow lines on Highway 111 and pulling out the one receiving area
roll -up door and having the building come out and providing another shadow
line.
92. Mr. Walker stated they had spent considerable money doing this around the
large doors that are more exposed to Highway II I and they could do
something like this. Discussed followed regarding the architectural and
landscape design plans.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCSVALRC-9-14-98.wpd -A ,' 112
4
93. Committee Member Cunningham stated he did not see the need for it. At
least not from the standpoint of bringing attention to it.
94. Planning Manager di Iorio stated it was not bringing attention to it. It was to
create another shadow line and break up the wall.
95. Committee Member Cunningham suggested an inset, a 12 inch block or
something. Mr. Walker stated that was possible.
96. Planning Manager di Iorio stated this was the kind of design element staff
was looking for.
97. Mr. Walker asked if staff had noticed that most of the windows were recessed
so the block is inset about two inches from the other block and to give
definition.
98. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he thought that could be a solution as it
appears to be screened. He then asked what the "gingerbread" was around
the larger doors.
99. Committee Member Cunningham stated it was the popouts. Discussion
followed regarding the treatment of the windows. Following the discussion
it was determined that the applicant would recess the windows around the
Chrysler building.
100. Planning Manager di Iorio then asked about the Mazda Superstore. Staff was
looking to have some relationship to the others. Staff had asked that there
be a tile inset on this building and some other tile treatment on the machine -
applied plaster parapets.
101. Committee Member Cunningham stated he would require the same as the
other building. He did not believe there was a need for it and when a builder
is using tile on an exterior, as a band, it is tough on the upkeep.
102. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 98-005
recommending approval of Site Development Permit 97-603 #1 to the
Planning Commission with the changes as recommended. Unanimously
approved.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping
Committee to the next regular meeting to be scheduled as needed. This meeting was adjourned at
11:45 a.m. on September 14, 1998.
C:AMy Documents\WPDOCSVALRC-9-14-98.wpd 0 1 113
BI #A
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
REQUEST:
OCTOBER 20, 1998
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-632
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
BENJAMIN AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR FOUR NEW
PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS
LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN TRACT 23373 IN STARLIGHT
DUNES, NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, WEST OF
ADAMS STREET
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is for four new residential prototype plans for Tract 23773 within
Starlight Dunes in north La Quinta.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Proposed are four prototype floor plans varying in size from 1,950 to 2,760 square
feet. The smallest unit has three bedrooms, with two having four bedrooms and the
fourth prototype having three bedrooms with an optional fitness room (bedroom). All
plans are one story in height. Height of all of the units is 18 feet. The three bedroom
unit has a two car garage, while the remaining units have 2.5 car garages.
The units are Spanish/Mediterranean in nature, utilizing exterior plaster walls, wood
fascias, and flat and "S"shaped concrete tile roofing. Colors of the exterior plaster are
white to light tan, with wood colors light tans to light brown, and roof tiles red
blends. The roof is primarily a gable or clipped gable running the width of the
residence with smaller gable or hip roofs coming off the main roof. Each plan includes
two different facades, with building sides and rears being the same within each plan.
Garage doors are sectional roll -up doors with lites.
Typical front yard landscaping plans have not yet been submitted. When submitted
they will be reviewed by the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and
Planning Commission for compatibility with existing planting.
C:alrc rpt sdp 98-632 #_* , 0
1
EXISTING UNIT DESCRIPTION
The existing units have been built by two developers. The original developer
constructed 47 units, while the second constructed 13 units. All of the units are
Spanish or Mediterranean in nature. The units are primarily one story with some two
story units. All units have concrete or clay tile roofing, exterior plaster walls and wood
fascias. Other features used include arches, shutters, wooden outrigger poles, popout
window and door surrounds, and sectional garage doors.
STAFF COMMENTS
All of the plans have a main roof that is either a side facing gable or clipped gable
running the length of the residence with shorter and smaller gable or hip roofs coming
off the main roof. There is no change in the main ridge line roof silhouette from the
street. Therefore, staff is recommending two of the four prototypes provide alternate
building elevations incorporating roof style and heights different than the side facing
gable or clipped gable roof.
The three car garages need to be 30 feet wide by 20 feet deep, because they are
required for the four bedroom unit plans (Plans 3, 4, and 5). The proposed garages are
short in either width or depth.
The landscaping plans are being prepared at this time. Therefore, they will require
separate approval prior to issuance of the first building permit related to these units.
FINDINGS
As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Committee is required to review and comment on the following architectural findings:
1. The architectural and other design elements of the new residential units will be
compatible and not detrimental to the other existing units in the projects.
2. The proposed single family residences will be compatible to existing dwellings
with respect to architectural materials such as roof material, window treatment,
and garage door style, colors, roof lines, and lot area.
Response to #1 .and #2:
The proposed units are the same architectural design, colors, and materials.
The units utilize similar architectural features such as tile roofs, exterior plaster,
sectional garage doors, paned windows, and arches. The plans with some
revision to the roof and exterior will be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
C:alrc rpt sdp 98-632 01
-7
r.. r
RECOMMENDATION:.
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 98-632,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Popout window and door surrounds shall be provided on all side and rear
elevations of all plans.
2. Preliminary front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and Planning Commission
prior to issuance of the first building permit for these units.
3. At least two of prototype plans shall be revised to provide a variety in main roof
which runs the width of the house. The intent is to avoid one continuous ridge
the entire width of the roof.
4. All two car garages shall be a minimum 20 feet by 20 feet inside, with all three
car garages a minimum 30 feet wide by 20 deep (plans 3, 4, and 5) per Zoning
Code requirements.
Attachment:
1 . Plan exhibits
Prepared by:
i1J `—JGcttl�
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
C:alrc rpt sdp 98-632
-'-'� 018
LANDSCAPE/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
CASE NO.
REQUEST:
LOCATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE:
BACKGROUND:
OCTOBER 20,1998
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-633
APPROVAL OF A 17, 802 SQUARE FOOT GOLF CLUB
HOUSE AND A 4,218 SQUARE FOOT CART STORAGE
FACILITY
SOUTH OF AVENUE 48 AND EAST OF JEFFERSON
STREET ON CASCADAS CIRCLE WITHIN RANCHO LA
QUINTA
T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT L.P.
WILLIAMS-BLACKSTOCK ARCHITECTS
T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT L.P.
TOURIST COMMERCIAL
TOURIST COMMERCIAL
NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH: GOLF COURSE
EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WEST: GOLF COURSE
The site is part of Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 2 which
is south of Avenue 48 between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. The specific
Plan permits this Tourist Commercial use, a club house and storage facility, at the
proposed location. The site is located south of Avenue 48, just north of the existing
Temporary Clubhouse taking access from Cascadas Circle. An existing parking lot
servicing the Temporary Clubhouse will be a portion the new parking lot facility.
��Q
The proposed one story Golf Club House and Cart storage building are similar in
architectural design to the existing Tennis Club facility. The proposed Club House is
approximately 204-feet by 130-feet (at it's widest) and consist of 17,802 square feet
of floor space. The facility will include of a pro shop, lobby, dining and club room,
full kitchen and a turn stand, wine storage, locker and lounge rooms, and
administrative offices. A 30-foot 10 inch tower golf valet stand which serves as a
focal point is attached to the main building by a wood rafter trellis. The Cart storage
building is approximately 85-feet by 50-feet and consists of a 4,218 square feet of
floor space. The facility will include of golf cart storage and repair. The architecture
of the facilities is of the Mediterranean period which is consistent with the existing
architectural themes and the Specific Plan General Architectural and Siting Guidelines.
The one story "L" shaped Golf Club House building will be a maximum of 33 feet and
4 inches and utilize a barrel vault clay tile roof material. Hipped roofs will be utilized
on this building. The walls are proposed to be stucco with a mission finish. A single
row of recessed tile accents below the roof eave are proposed. Many of the
windows will have painted wood lintels. Multi -pane arched fan lights highlight many
of the large fixed windows. Several arched openings have painted wood grilles. A
wood trellis supported by stucco columns is proposed to wrap around a portion of the
west elevation and extend from the north elevation main entry to the detached tower
adjacent to the northeast building corner.
The one story rectangular Cart Storage building will be a maximum of 18 feet and 3
inches and utilize a barrel vault clay tile roof material. Hipped roofs will be utilized on
this building with painted metal louvers insets. The walls are proposed to be stucco
with a mission finish. A single row of recessed tile accents below the roof eave are
proposed. Two metal roll up doors for golf cart access are proposed. The applicant
has indicated that the overall material and color used for the Racquet Club facility will
be the same as utilized for the Golf Clubhouse and Cart Storage buildings.
The Landscape Planting Plan is consistent with the suggested "Plant Material Palette"
in the Specific Plan. California Pepper and Southern Live Oak (Quercus Virginiana)
trees, Date and Mediterranean Fan Palms, Bougainvillea and a diverse variety of
shrubs unique to desert soil and climate conditions are provided. Hardscape material
consists of color and exposed aggregate concrete
Staff Comments
As required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning
Ordinance, the committee is required to review and comment on the following
findings:
• a4% 0,9p
Architectural Design The architectural style, scale, and building mass materials,
colors, architectural details, roof styles, and other architectural elements are
compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent
in the City.
1 . The Project will expand services now provided at the temporary Golf
Club House. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Rancho
La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 2 including building
height, scale and massing in that the buildings complement the
architectural style in Rancho La Quinta. This includes scale, massing,
exterior materials, architectural detail, and colors in that the walls will
have a smooth finish, barrel shaped roof tile, wood lentils and grilles, an
architecturally compatible capped chimney, and archways that define
entry points and courtyards.
Landscape Design Project landscaping, including but not limited to the
location, type, size, color texture, and coverage of plant materials has
been designed to create a lush character of visual variety and textural
interest. Project landscaping promotes a feeling of oasis and uses
drought tolerant plant material to further aid in the conservation of
water. Landscape architectural elements including the trellised
promenades and walkways provide separation of traffic and golfers and
guests. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Rancho La
Quinta Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 2 in that the type and size
of plant material, and landscape architectural elements are in compliance
with the established theme in Rancho La Quinta.
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the architecture and landscaping
design under Site Development Permit 98-633.
Attachments:
1 . Plan Exhibits
t.e
��1
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
BI #C
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1998
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-634
APPLICANT: RIELLY HOMES, INC.
ARCHITECT: BASS ENIAN/LAGONI ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SIX NEW
PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS
LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN TRACT 28838 IN SPECIFIC
PLAN 83-002 (PGA WEST) AND PART OF SPECIFIC PLAN
90-017 TO THE SOUTH
BACKGROUND:
The proposal is for six new residential prototype plans for Tract 28838 within PGA
West in south La Quinta. The units may also be built in the currently unmapped area
south of Tract 28838 (Specific Plan 90-017).
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Proposed are six prototype floor plans varying from 2,100 to 3,696 square feet in size.
The smallest unit has three bedrooms with an optional casitas (bedroom), with one
plan having three bedrooms, three plans having four bedrooms, and the largest plan
having five bedrooms. Each plan is laid out in a "C" shape to provide a front
courtyard. All plans are one story with the height varying from 20'-6" to 23'-8",
excluding the chimney. Within each plan, the roof heights vary due to the different
roof planes and sizes. The three bedroom unit has a two car garage, while the
remaining units have 2.5 car garages or larger.
The units are Spanish/Mediterranean in nature, utilizing exterior plaster walls, wood
fascias, and clay tile roofing. Colors of the exterior plaster range from white to light
brown, with wood colors light tans to light brown, and roof tiles solid red and red
blends. A total of eight color schemes is indicated. Each plan includes three different
facades, with building sides and rears being the same within each plan. Garage doors
are sectional roll -up doors with lites.
Typical front yard landscaping plans have not yet been submitted. When submitted
they will be reviewed by the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and
C:alrc rpt sdp 98-634 1 �,+1 02,1
Planning Commission for compatibility with existing planting. The planting will need
to comply with the plant pallette in the approved Specific Plan for PGA West.
EXISTING UNIT DESCRIPTION
The existing units have been built by a number of developers. To date, approximately
1,800 dwelling units have been constructed in PGA West. The size of the constructed
and approved units varies from 1,290 to 4,830 square feet. All of the units are
Spanish or Mediterranean in nature. The units are primarily one story with some two
story units. All units have clay or concrete tile roofing, exterior plaster walls and
plaster or wood fascias. Other features used include but are not limited to arches,
shutters, popout window and door surrounds, earth tone exterior colors, and sectional
garage doors.
STAFF COMMENTS
Because of the "C" shape of the units, the roof line is varied in shape and height,
creating an attractive streetscape. The units are attractive and compatible with the
development in PGA West.
Plans 3 and 4 and 1, with the optional casitas have four bedrooms. This requires
those units to have a full three car garage. The three car garages need to be 30 feet
wide by 20 feet deep. Plans 3 and 4 have two car garages and two golf cart spaces,
which are too small to qualify as a third garage space. Plan 1 with the optional
casitas, only has a two car garage.
The landscaping plans are being prepared at this time. Therefore, they will require
separate approval prior to issuance of the first building permit related to these units.
FINDINGS
As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Committee is required to review and comment on the following architectural findings:
1 . The architectural and other design elements of the new residential units will be
compatible and not detrimental to the other existing units in the projects.
2. The proposed single family residences will be compatible to existing dwellings
with respect to architectural materials such as roof material, window treatment,
and garage door style, colors, roof lines, and lot area.
Response to #1 .and #2:
The proposed units are the same architectural design, colors, and materials.
The units utilize similar architectural features such as tile roofs, exterior plaster,
C:alrc rpt sdp 98-634 La 022
sectional garage doors, paned windows, and arches, etc. The plans will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 98-634,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Preliminary front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee and Planning Commission
prior to issuance of the first building permit for these units.
2. Plans 3, 4, and 1 with the optional casitas, shall provide three car garages,
which are a minimum 30 feet wide by 20 deep, or its equivalent.
Attachment:
1. Plan exhibits (large plans for Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
i r IN I / Mir
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
1 �k_' � d4'i6tL
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
C'alrc mt sdp 98-634
r.
l•
41
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1998
CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 98-001
APPLICANT: JAMES LEWIS, JTL PROPERTY, INC.
ARCHITECT: DESERT HOME DESIGNERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PLANS TO REMODEL AND CONSTRUCT A
1,050 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A 2,438 SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR USE AS DAY SPA
AND BEAUTY SALON
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EISENHOWER DRIVE, BETWEEN AVENIDA
MONTEZUMA AND AVENIDA MARTINEZ (51-230
EISENHOWER DRIVE)
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to use the former Schatzi's Grill restaurant for a day spa
and beauty salon. This request entails interior and exterior remodeling and additions
to the north and south ends of the building.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The larger of the two additions will be at the north end of the building. This addition
will be approximately 21 feet by 34 feet and consist of the entry and waiting area.
The second addition will be at the south end and extend most of the building end out
14 feet, adjacent to Avenida Montezuma.
The additions will be architecturally compatible with the existing building. The exterior
materials of the wall will remain plaster. The building has several areas with horizontal
wood siding which will be replaced with stucco.
A matching tile mansard roof will be incorporated into the additions, maintaining the
16 foot height to the top of the parapet. Between the exposed wood roof rafters, a
new wood fascia to match that used in the existing building will be added. The only
windows will be those which exist facing Eisenhower Drive (left elevation). The
172 f;
C:alrc vup 98-001
awnings over these windows and the entry will be removed. The existing earth tone
exterior colors and red tile roof will be maintained.
The site is fully landscaped, primarily with palm trees. The landscaping will be
maintained as is, with some new shrubs planted in planter beds.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The addition has been designed to be compatible with the materials, colors, and design
features of the existing building. The roof addition is identical and blends with the
existing roof. Staff is recommending a roof revision at the northwest corner of the
addition at Avenida Martinez and Eisenhower Drive and at the southeast corner of the
addition because it cannot encroach over the public sidewalk as shown.
The applicants proposed remodel lacks any unique design detail. The east (right
elevation) and north (front elevation) building elevations are generally blank building
walls. This building is within the Village Commercial area, situated at a four way
intersection, and is one of the main entrances to the Cove residential neighborhood and
Village commercial area. The Village Guidelines promote human scale to create a
pedestrian environment in the Village. This requires buildings with architectural
variation and detailing, and pedestrian oriented architectural features, such as trellises
and arcades. Therefore, Staff is recommending the entrance at the parking lot
incorporate a trellis, awning, or other design feature to highlight the entrance.
Secondly, the lack of windows, or other detail creates an uninviting streetscape and
parking lot view. Staff is recommending clerestory (glass or glass block) windows or
full length or other treatment, such as a wainscot around the building be provided.
Currently, the parking lot is unscreened from view adjacent to Avenida Montezuma.
A landscape hedge or screen will improve the visual appearance of the parking lot area.
FINDINGS:
As required by Section 9.65.040 (Village Use Permits) of the Zoning Code, the
Committee is required to review and comment on the following findings:
Architectural Desion- The architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors,
architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with
the surrounding development and with the quality of design illustrated in the Village
at La Quinta Guidelines.
Response:
1. The proposed construction matches the existing building and colors and
materials will be maintained. With additional architectural treatment on
C:alrc vup 98-001 n� ^,
the building, the proposal will be acceptable. The revised project
promotes the element of human scale, as desired in the Village at La
Quinta Design Guidelines.
Landscape Design- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type,
size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to
provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements
and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between
adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall
unifying influence, design and elements of the Village Use Permit are compatible with
surrounding development and the concepts of the Village at La Quinta Design
Guidelines.
Response:
1 . Due to the location of the proposed addition to an existing building, new
landscaping is minimal. New landscaping will be primarily to replace dead
plants. New planting will be similar to that which has died. Planting,
including screening of the parking lot, will promote human scale and
enhance the visual qualities of the Village at La Quinta area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Village Use Permit 98-001,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Plant materials used shall match or be compatible to those used on the site.
2. Exterior colors and materials of the existing and proposed building shall match.
3. Provide architectural treatment on the east (right elevation) and north (front
elevation) sides of the building. This could include windows (full length or
clerestory), false plaster window treatment, wainscot (around the building) or
some similar design treatment.
4. Provide screening of parking from Avenida Montezuma per Zoning Code
requirements.
5. The Roof shall be revised to not encroach over property line.
6. A trellis, arcade or other similar structure shall be provided over the entrance in
the parking lot.
C:alrc vup 98-001 026
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Plan exhibits
Prepared by: Submitted by:
'5tz,,43��
Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Christine di lorio, Pla ping Manager
a2 ,
C:alrc vup 98-001
CASE MAP
CASE No.
ORTH
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 98-001 1
SCALE:
NTS