Loading...
2000 04 05 ALRC�a�Q•c F oz a � w OF Tkh'9y ARCHITECTURE AND ]LANDSCAPING A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California April 5, 2000 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2000-007 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 March 1, 2000 Minutes. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Case ........................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-671 Applicant .................. Toll Brothers, Gary Lemon Location ................... Adjacent to the Greg Norman signature golf course on portions of Kinston Heath and Tiburon Drive in Tracts 29349 and 29348. Request .................... Approval of architectural and landscaping, plans for eight new prototype residential units . Action ...................... Minute Motion 2000- ALRC/AGENDA B. Case ........................ Applicant .................. Location ................... Request .................... Action ...................... C. Case ........................ Applicant .................. Location ................... Request .................... Action ..................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-674 T. D. Desert Development Within Rancho La Quinta Country Club. Approval of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units. Minute Motion 2000- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 Bill Hobin c/o La Quinta - SPC, LLC Southeast corner of Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Storm Channel, north of Corporate Centre! Drive. Approval of architectural plans and landscaping plans for a self storage facility within La Quinta Corporate Centre. Minute Motion 2000- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT J.u6 00L ALRC/AGENDA MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham. C. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Reynolds. Unanimously approved. D. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. IIl. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 2, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-667; a request of M & H Realty Partners for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial pad building located at the southwest corner of Highway I I I and Washington Street within Plaza La Quinta. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant if he would like to address the Committee. C\My Documents\ W PDOCSVALRC 3-1-00. wpd Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 3. Mr. David Geiser, M & H Realty Partners, owners of the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center stated they have gone to great extent to see that this building matches the rest of the center. It is their intention to maintain the architectural integrity of the existing design. To them, the issue is that staff is asking them to have a tile mansard roof on south elevation. To them the Center itself has a lot of different architectural features especially, where the tower is located and the plaza opens up. The idea is that as you see the building from Highway 111, it will match the rest of the Center, but from the Center looking north they want the outdoor plaza look with an outdoor sifting area to be the focal point. The arcade as suggested by staff, would create an area that would be more of a travel through than a sit down plaza. In contrast to staffs opinion, the flat trellis look does present the human scale which adds to the architectural character of the Center and increases the connection between the two buildings. They strongly want to keep the trellis as it will be a selling point. The blue tile around the doors is to match the existing Center as well as the exposed wood. They do not object to changing the doors on the trash enclosure to metal. They can change the windows as recommended by staff. Regarding the recommendation of staff for a wood storefront, they are requesting to use some of the newer building material technology to create a newer storefront system. They would be willing to use a plaster bullhead, but wood mullions are difficult to maintain. He went on to list the architectural details of the building that matched the Center. A second issue in stags recommendation is Item #1, where staff is asking them be resubmitted their plans to the Community Development Department for review prior to submitting for a building permit. They have submitted their plans and want to be able to continue with the plan check process. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is hard to create a rendering that will give a true description of what the project will look like, but in this instance the only item that appears to match the rest of the Center is the lamppost. This particular Center has a lot of texture that this building is missing. By not using mullions you lose the texture look. This building gives the appearance of a contemporary Spanish take off. This looks more like the Albertsons Plaza across the street. Plaza La Quinta had the higher tile and full mudded tiles. The tiles on this building will have to match the rest of the Center exactly. When the Plaza was built, the developer created a more Spanish look. This store should be a continuation of what is there and appears to be going the wrong direction. He is not opposed to the trellis idea, but the rest of the building looks like a box store. Mr. Geiser stated that on the north elevation the details are the same. They are trying to combine all the elements of the Center. 5. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they agreed with all of staff s recommendations. Mr. Geiser stated they did. Committee Member Cunningham reiterated they do not want the storefront look. For the C:AMyDocumenis\WPDOCSVALRC3-1-OO.wpd 2 Lv 004 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March I, 2000 windows, they could use a composite material that looks like wood and use true divided lights, but to stay close to staff s recommendations. This building is an in -fill that does have a distinct style. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with Committee Member Cunningham. The east and north elevation are fine. The windows are not the same as the rest of the Center, but do resemble the Downey Savings, building. The detail that is missing is a tower element. This building is all flat. This is what is missing and a key element that should be included. The south elevation lacks architectural detail. On the rest of the Center you can see tile from every angle. Mr. Geiser stated they too wanted to have the tower element, but there is a height restriction on Highway 111 that prohibits the tower. Their original design did have the tower and mansard roof. Mr. Geiser stated you would be able to see bits and pieces of tile from different angles as you traveled through the Center and he agrees the building would be better with a tower. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the walls are straight and the Center has a lot of variations. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated that if this was done in a rendering form you could see how the tile would be used. He reiterated that the problem is that this Center has so much texture and these elevations do not give a true feel for how the building will look and if it will blend in. This building is to be a part of the group. A tower would be great, but it would be difficult with the regulations as they are today. Mr. Geiser stated this building will be located next to the focal tower element of the Center and if they did add a tower, the two might fight with each other. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that as you enter the Center you will see the effect. He does like the doors on the north elevation. As long as the south elevation has the same window effect he wouldn't object. Mr. Geiser stated the building may change with the addition of tenants who may want additional windows on the south elevation; could this be approved administratively. Staff stated yes. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this piece of property takes up the entire pad area. Staff stated yes. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was willing to give on the tile mansard roof. Staff stated this was the first building that would not have the tile. In addition, the applicant was asking for an amendment to the sign program to use all wall mounted signs instead of the hanging signs that are a part of the multi -tenant part of the Center. Also a concern, is that this building faces south and will need more shade than the trellis will provide. Mr. Geiser stated they would place the shade cloth and the plants. In regard to the signs, the way the building is designed there is no place to put the signs, except on the building fronts. C:AMy Documents\WPD0CSVALRC3-I-00.wpd 3 ,� .�., 00y Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March I. 2000 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated the Center was designed to create a "Village" atmosphere. He likes the trellis because it opens it and is in keeping with the Center. The only issue he does not want to drop, is the storefront. The windows and front application should be the same as the remainder of the Center. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he didn't dislike the building and he too likes the trellis treatment. As far as the signs, the Center does have buildings with wall signs as well. His recommendation would be to approve the building with staff s recommendations with the deletion of the mansard roof and tile for the south elevation. He asked if there was anyway to get the tower element without the full mansard roof. Mr. Geiser stated it will look like you are just trying to add tile. Committee Member Bobbin asked if the building would have the popouts around the windows. Mr. Geiser stated they will be the same as the existing tile popouts on the Center. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2000-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-667, subject to conditions as amended. a. Conditions 3.A.: deleted. b. Condition 3.D.: Storefront windows and doors shall use brown wood frames or similar composite materials. C. Condition 4: Materials, colors, and stucco finish shall match those used in the multi -tenant portion of the Center. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2000-669; a request of the James R. Paul for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a multi -tenant industrial/office building located at the northwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Corporate Center Drive within La Quinta Corporate Center Specific Plan. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked Mr. Bob Ricciardi, architect for the project, for his presentation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that due to the Specific Plan requirements the buildings are not the typical industrial style. However, they did need to accommodate the cost element therefore, the southwest look was selected with as much storefront glass as possible. They are using wood beam lintels and smaller windows to create the southwest look. With the landscaping they are trying to meet the Specific Plan requirements. C:AMy Documents\WPDOCSVALRC3-I-OO.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1. 2000 Committee Member Bobbitt questioned why some of the trees on the original plans are not on the revised plan for the elevation that faces the High School. Mr. Ricciardi stated the trees will be there and were overlooked on the revised plan. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that as you travel. south on Dune Palms Road you will see the flat rear wall and this is why the trees are so important for screening. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated his biggest concern was the landscaping on the back wall. A second issue would be to have the trash enclosure at the northeast comer moved more toward the center of the project rather than next to Dune Palms Road. There needs to be some type of landscaping statement at the corner of the site rather than a trash enclosure. Mr. Ricciardi stated they tried to place the trash enclosure out of the way of the trucks that would be traveling through this area and keep them close enough for the tenants to walk to them. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the air conditioning units would be placed on the roof. Mr. Ricciardi stated they would be on the roof and should not be visible from the street. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2000-006 approving Site Development Permit 99-669, as submitted. Unanimously approved. a. The trash enclosure area at the northeast corner of the site, shall be moved over 30± feet west so as not to be seen from the Dune Palms Road. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourri this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on March 1, 2000. This meeting was adjourned at 11:23 a.m. on March 1, 2000. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California C:AMy Documents\WPD0CS\ALRC3-I-OO.wpd n 0. V , BI #fi► ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 5, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-671 APPLICANT: GARY LEMON, REGIONAL MANAGER FOR TOLL BROTHERS, INC. REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR EIGHT NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: ADJACENT TO THE GREG NORMAN SIGNATURE GOLF COURSE ON PORTIONS OF KINGSTON HEATH AND TIBURON DRIVE IN TRACTS 29349-1 (LOTS 1-34) AND 29348-2 (LOTS 1-391, ARCHITECT: RNM ARCHITECTS• PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: TKD ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED The property is within the Greg Norman Signature Golf Course on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street. The applicant's prototype units are proposed to be located on Kingston Heath and Tiburon, private streets within the boundary of Specific Plan 90-015. Specific Plan 90-015 (Amendment #2) for The Norman Course, approved under Resolution 99-1 12, provides the Community Design Guidelines for the residential units. Eight prototype house plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,689 square! feet to over 4,000 square feet. There are no two story houses proposed. The height of these houses average 21 feet. Proposed architectural design themes are Italian Country, Santa Barbara, and Contemporary. Each plan type has two facade design treatments that include architectural popouts, variation in window sizes and shapes, changes in SR alrc sdp 2000-671 - 40 roof designs, and other distinct but unifying features. Hip roofs, in varied heights, are the dominant facade treatment (i.e., 5:12 roof pitches). Plan types are as follows: Plan 5A Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Castillo Navarro Quintana Sienna Sq. Footage 2,689 3,222 3,412 3,409+ Bedrooms 3 4 4 3 or 4 Garage 2 3 3 3 Parking Front Loaded Front and Side Side Loaded Front and Side Spaces Loaded Loaded Plan 9 Plan 10 Plan 11 Plan 12 Santa Barbara Mendocino Santa Rosa Ventana Sq. Footage 3,230+ 3,650 3,741 4,057+ Bedrooms 3 or 4 4 5 5 or 6 Garage 3 3 3 3 Parking Front and Side Front and Side Front Loaded Side Loaded Spaces Loaded Loaded Note: Detached casitas options are available on Plans 8, 9, and 12. House widths vary from 60 feet to 70 feet. Exterior building materials vary depending on the architectural theme of the unit. Materials include plaster walls, flat and S-shaped concrete roof tiles, and stone veneer accents. Building colors are primarily variations of white and brown with dark accents colors in shades of blue, green and brown. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting. A front yard landscaping plan has been submitted for the model homes sales area on Kingston Heath (Lots 2-5 of Tract 29349-1). Landscaping consists of two street trees (24" box and larger) per lot accented by sod, a variety of five gallon shrubs, palm trees and annual color. Trees used for the project are California Pepper, Chilean Mesquite, Jacaranda and African Sumac. Plant materials are appropriate for this climate. Boulders highlight the landscape planting program. SR alrc sdp 2000-671 - 40 W;.6 1� 000 FINDINGS: 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: 1. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code and Architectural Guidelines of the Specific Plan (SP 90-015, Amendment #2). RESPONSE: The Zoning Code design guidelines require a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that two facades per plan are proposed, roof heights are varied with the combination of different roof designs, and plaster surrounds are provided where required. The Specific Plan guidelines dictate architectural themes, exterior color ranges and materials, and design criteria. The proposed plans are also in compliance with these items. 2. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. RESPONSE: The architectural styles, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements of the units are attractive and compatible with surrounding units recently approved for the Greg Norman Signature Golf Course in that architectural variety is achieved. 3. 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, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. RESPONSE: The plans provide conceptual design and planting information for the front yards and project entries. The pallette includes those plants specified in the Specific Plan, as well as additional compatible plants. Staff review of detailed plans for these plans is recommended. SR alrc sdp 2000-671 - 40� ��`� � A 1 rJ RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2000- 671, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Prior to issuance of building permits, a final front yard landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Attachments: 1 . Plan Exhibit Booklet 2. Concept Landscape Plan 5ePrdb, Associat sdelle Planner Submitted by: -011ae/nlanager: _ --- Christine di lorio, !. J ij Oil SR alrc sdp 2000-671 - 40 BI #B ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 5, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-674 APPLICANT: T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRANDELL, INC. REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR TWO NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB The Rancho La Quinta Country Club (Specific Plan 84-004) is an under construction master planned community of 1,300 single family houses situated around two existing 18 hole golf courses on 718 acres located on the south side of Avenue 48 and situated between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan 84-004 (Amendment #3) was approved by the City Council on June 1, 1999 under Resolution 99-73 and provides the Community Design Guidelines for the proposed residential units. The applicant's prototype units are proposed to be located in the east: side of the development in Tract 29457 (Planning Unit III of SP 84-004). PROJECT-PROP Two prototype, single story house plans are proposed ranging in size frorn 2,627 square feet to over 5,000 square feet (i.e., Elegantes and Villas). Architectural themes are Santa Barbara and California Mediterranean with only one building facade treatment proposed for each plan variation. SR alrc sdp 2000-674 - 39 Plan types are as follows: Elegantes Plan 1 Plan 1 Opt., Plan 2 Plan 3 Sq. Footage 3,228 3,630 3,854+ 4,855+ Bedrooms 3 4 4 4 Garage Parking Spaces 3 Front Loaded 3 Front Loaded 3 Front and Side Loaded 3 Front Loaded Villas Plan 1 Plan 2 Sq. Footage 2,627 2,639+ Bedrooms 3 3 or 4 Garage Parking Spaces 3 Front Loaded 2 Front Loaded Note: Some Plan types offer floor plan options. Architectural variations are achieved through variations in window sizes and shapes, changes in roof designs, and other distinct but unifying features (i.e., stucco pop outs, etc.)• Hip and gable roof design themes are proposed and roof heights vary from approximately 19 feet to 22 feet. Exterior building materials vary depending on the architectural theme of the unit. Materials include plaster walls, S-shaped concrete roof tiles, and precast stone accents, Building colors are primarily variations of off-white and light brown with accents colors in shades of green and brown. Roof tile colors are in shades of brown, red and grey. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting for review. FINDINGS-: 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: 1. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code and Architectural Guidelines of the Specific Plan (SP 84-004, Amendment #3)• SR alrc sdp 2000-674 - 39 RESPONSE: The Zoning Code design guidelines require a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed units do not comply with these requirements in that only one facade per plan is proposed. Otherwise, the plans comply with the City's design requirements because roof heights are varied with the combination of different roof designs and other design elements. The Specific Plan guidelines dictate architectural themes, exterior color ranges and materials, and design criteria. The proposed plans are also in compliance with these items. 2. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. RESPONSE: The architectural styles, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements of the units are attractive and compatible with other Rancho La Quinta units, and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 3. 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, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. RESPONSE: Various landscape plans have been approved for this development in the past. The developer is allowed to use these plans or shall submit new plans to the City for review. 4. Parking standards comply with City's design standards for single; family residential units. RESPONSE Under Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the Zoning Code, three: garage parking spaces are required when a house has four or more bedrooms. The plan types show optional floor plans with dens, guest suites, and offices which are counted as bedrooms for compliance with the Zoning Code provisions. Plan 2 of the Villas requires a three car garage if the option suite is chosen. SR alrc sdp 2000-674 - 39 014 RECOMMENDAT[ON: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2000- 674, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department including the following: A. A minimum of two facades shall be prepared for each plan type as required by Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development (Review) of the Zoning Code. B. Three car garages shall be provided for all four bedroom units pursuant Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance. Enclosed parking spaces shall measure a minimum dimension of 10-feet wide by 20-feet long and be free of any obstructions such as mechanical equipment, etc. Attachments: 1 . Plan Exhibit Booklet /cia reg dell, Asse Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager SR alrc sdp 2000-674 - 39 s� F& e—4 cd a tl a C = J a W �' _ � o Z m _ � m Lu CC3 aL Ea �i W .�.�i 01 t IiJ dA 9m = E@ 1W /� i -I 4-6 d C O ti a III: 9: .. rq it W O 1 III I I illl Z m 8 d F ICI li uI 9` Y 5 p $o A-1 N Ill a m 1� nic 0 .us J J W °i 0c Z . QLLJ N �- Y " - V C� 5 Y •!'' i U R % i J a I z 0 m :si � Y g o c m S Q{ [I Lu Ia n° �4 a A v 021 I � w I I Z I I I ,I w 0-AL ' 022 �^ �lili'I II J a a J W xa �'. � O 'c m �..... Q n m n r� ililll II 111. iU � V ig wQ 3s �� III_Y 9AS x 1. G III a oIII c llhl�l 11 z ld�l g I� (.5 P.!!A >4 ap z 0 024 O G F- IId Y � W � wo a5 a' C a' III Q N c 'C - 8 Im ON 02r C �i IL�IjJ Q m R _ i Z `m 8 m Y � r^� IIY mAg h-�1 plo i' lwa w w 142C .FA1 l j a F, L7 o W a I'il lil' U C RF ch W � 59 IY � a a a m a llll IS 0277 ---------------------------- o-.ac i � o o i �vai II!I�� W ffi& W Ii! W 'I;d g$ m�N I J � WV 1--1 02 C rA J �- J � c N �- Y E'' d x H "9_w 021' E 771 a rl Ls ill 111 J W c rn A S P 111 i Z cm e o N'INI li IN l Y m S9 sF I�'e,91f UJ � 95 z a U N ozz 0 Uu 0 a Vy1 P. 11 j iil,I a A rn m o J W gal m Y m aOa Ills �.W£ oA C J W Z m Q n - �� m M a h■-I c a�g uIlp;I J a: . Ill�����i����� w m as li'�illlll o° Z !� NLu E Cd 4 dP e a LU F w W W BI #C ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER ARCHITECT: APRIL 5, 2000 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 BILL HOBIN C/O LA QUINTA - SPC, LLC. RAYMOND TROLL C/O TROLL WOODPARK DEVELOPMENT VALLI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR PHASES II & III SELF STORAGE BUILDINGS WITHIN LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL, NORTH OF CORPORATE CENTRE DRIVE The proposed self storage facility will be a 3.77 acre expansion to the existing La Quinta Self Storage facility (Attachment 1). The proposed expansion is within Planning Area 1 of the La Quinta Corporate Centre (Specific Plan 99-036). The existing facility is not within the Specific Plan (Attachment 2). Phase I of the proposed single -story self storage buildings (Buildings A, B, C, & D) will contain 58,126 square feet of floor area. Phase II (Areas E & F) will consist of 111 recreational vehicle parking spaces (Attachment 3). The proposed expansion will be completely secured with the perimeter buildings serving as barriers along with connecting walls and access gates. The expansion area will not be accessed from the existing facility, except through a maintenance gate located near the northeast corner. No additional employee/public parking spaces are proposed for the expansion. Parking will be provided within the 28-ft to 30-ft wide asphalt drive aisles between each building. Perimeter landscaping is proposed along landscape setbacks areas and at the two proposed access gate openings. P:\alrcrptSDP2000-673BillHobin4-5-OO.wpd n 34 Perimeter/Exterior Design The two proposed access gates along Corporate Centre Drive will have 7-feet high black wrought iron electronic sliding gates with keypad entry equipment. The western -most gate will be 25-feet wide, have a 30-foot long stacking area, and serve as primary access to the proposed expansion area. The 20-foot wide eastern -most gate will serve as emergency access only. The buildings will have flat gray metal roofs with decorative parapet caps for a total height of 12-feet. Along the perimeter of the project site, the proposed north and south elevations) will match the same architectural design as the existing facility, with light tan painted concrete block building walls and stucco -clad pilasters spaced 66- feet apart. The proposed building walls will feature horizontal reveals and darker tan color accent along the wall bases. The proposed trellises will be "cedar red". The interior elevations of the perimeter buildings will feature "cedar red" painted metal roll -up doors separated by stucco -clad concrete block pilasters, decorative parapet caps, and tan trim colored raingutters. A color and materials exhibit will be available at the meeting. Landscaping The conceptual landscaping plan is included in the proposal, and has a varied plant palette consisting of 2 varieties of trees, 1 variety of palm tree, 2 varieties of espaliers/vines, 13 varieties of shrubs, and 3 types of ground cover. Caliper sizes of the proposed trees are not specified. The plan proposes perimeter landscaping along Corporate Centre Drive, in front of Buildings A and B, and along the north elevation of Building C at the pilasters. MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made, with the implementation of Conditions of Approval, as follows: 1 . Landscape Design. The proposed landscape plan does not comply with the adopted La Quinta Corporate Centre landscape guidelines in that plant species are proposed that are not on the Master Plant List. To remedy this, staff recommends Condition No. 1 which requires that the landscape plan be revised to comply with the Specific Plan list. The proposed landscaping plans do not indicate the caliper of the 24-inch box or 15-gallon trees, but staff recommends in Condition No. 2 that the plan provide a minimum 1 .5" to 2 inch caliper size for the 24-inch box size and 3/4- to 1-inch caliper for the 15-gallon sized trees, P:\alrcrptSDP2000-673Bi I I Hobi n4-5-OO.wpd 31. to comply with Section 9.60.300 (1)(4) of the Zoning Code. Also, groundcover is not proposed along Corporate Center Drive, therefore, staff is recommending it be added to the landscape plan. •I WWTI I_ • • Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2000- 673, subject.to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant shall revise the proposed landscape plan to comply with the adopted Master Plant List for SP 99-036. 2. The revised landscape plan shall include (1) the required caliper sizes in compliance with Section 9.60.300 (1)(4) of the Zoning Code, which requires a minimum 1 .5" to 2" caliper for the 24-inch box tree size and 3/4" to 1 " caliper for the 15-gallon sized trees, measured at a point 6-inches above ground surface; (2) groundcover along Corporate Centre Drive. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan Exhibit 3. Architectural and landscaping plans 11 Prepared by: Su itted by: Les ie Mouriqua d, Asso ate Planner Christine di I rio, Plan ing Manager PAaIrcrptSDP2000-673BiIIHobin4-5-OO.wpd n3r