2000 11 01 ALRCr cz
7 OF TKF
IV
V
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING
REVIEW COMMITTEE
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
November 1, 2000
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2000-020
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
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.
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for October 18, 2000.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item .......................
Applicant ................
Location .................
Request ..................
Action ....................
SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 2000-677
Evergreen - La Quinta Limited Partnership
Southeast corner of 501h Avenue and Washington
Street
Review of landscaping plant pallette for a
commercial office complex and land and building
elevations for a drugstore.
Minute Motion 2000-
ALRC/AGENDA
..7_U U U 001
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING
REVIEW COMMITTEE A G E N D A
November 1, 2000
B. Item .......................
Applicant ................
Location .................
Request ..................
Action ...................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685.
Tait and Associates, Steve Frank, Project Manger
Northwest corner of Highway 111 and
Washington Street within Point Happy Specific
Plan
Review of building elevations and landscaping
plans for a 3,984 square foot convenience store
Minute Motion 2000-
C. Item ....................... GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-071, ZONE
CHANGE 2000-096, VILLAGE USE PERMIT
2000-004, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2000-402
Applicant ................ Chapman Golf Development, LLC
Location ................. Northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club
Drive
Request .................. Review of building elevations and landscaping
plans for an 11,900 square foot restaurant
Action .................... Minute Motion 2000-
D. Item ....................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-665
Applicant ................ Steven Walker Homes
Location ................. Tract 29347 in Specific Plan 90-015 (Norman
Course)
Request .................. Review of landscaping plans for model homes,
approved prototype residential plans, and
common areas
Action .................... Minute Motion 2000-
E. Item ....................... COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM 2000-003
Applicant ................ Mary Hope Franco - La Quinta Videc, and Paging
Location ................. South side of Avenida La Fonda at Avenida
Bermudas (78-040 Avenida La Fonda)
Request .................. Funding request to install new landscaping,
fence, and awning with illuminated :sign.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2000-
ALRC/AGENDA
.+.���002
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING
REVIEW COMMITTEE A G E N D A
November 1, 2000
F. Item ......................
Applicant ...............
Location .................
Request .................
Action ....................
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM 2000-004
Michael/Annie Fischer - Village Park Animal
Hospital
South side of Avenida Montezuma (77-895
Avenida Montezuma)
Funding request for a block wall along the west
property line.
Minute Motion 2000-
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
ALRC/AGENDA
_.a.0 6(,003
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 18, 2000
I. CALL TO ORDER
10:00 a.m.
A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called
to order at 1 1 :08 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di lorio who led the
flag salute.
B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank
Reynolds.
C. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Management Analyst
Britt Wilson, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
A. Committee Member Reynolds asked that the date of the Minutes for
approval be changed to October 4, 2000. It was moved and seconded
by Commissioner Reynolds/Bobbitt to confirm the agenda as corrected.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to
the Minutes of October 4, 2000. There being no corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Cunningham to
approve the minutes as submitted.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-002; a request of
David Cetina, El Ranchito Mexican Restaurant for review of a funding
request to construct a front patio cover and new concrete.
1. Management Analyst Britt Wilson and Planning Manager Christine
di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 10-N8-OO.wpd 1 ,-O . 004
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
October 18, 2000
2. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had gone through all the
material and criteria contained in the staff report and to him it did
not appear the Historic Preservation Commission had followed the
rules. The slope of the patio cover on the one building is
incongruous to what is there. It they try to match the roof lines
with the cover it will be a disaster. If built the way it is shown,
the owner will have to put up a rain gutter as it is sloped right into
the entrance.
3. Commissioner Bobbitt stated the patio cover is an open lattice. He
agrees that the slope of the patio cover on the right side of the
building and the post treatment are not appropriate, which were
the two issues raised at the last meeting. From an architectural
standpoint it would look better to have a flat roof. He asked staff
where the idea came from to slope the patio cover. He understood
the owner's original design was to have a flat roof.
4. Commissioner Cunningham stated that if this had come before the
Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) before the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and the ALRC reviewed
it architecturally and then moved to approve the funds, hopefully
changes could have been made to the architecture. What
happened was the HPC had voted on this design and the ALRC did
not want to hold the applicant up nor disagree with another
Commission, therefore the ALRC continued it to allow staff time
to provide the ALRC with information. He apologized for the time
it was taking, but the Committee wants to make the process work
for this grant and future grants. The Committee is suggesting that
it be given a rated, but go on record that they do not agree with
the architecture. The goal being to work with applicant to move
the project along, but put their comments on record. Staff
suggested the Committee could grade it and staff will relay the
Committee's comments on to the HPC and they can accept the
information and if they chose to they can change their
recommendation.
5. Commissioner Bobbitt asked if any buildings that did not have to
be reviewed by HPC would come directly to the ALRC. Staff
stated that was correct. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he
also did not want to hold this up or withhold the funds as they do
deserve the funds, but would like to know how this idea to tilt the
patio cover up came from, as it does detract from the existing
building.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRCIO-18-OO.wpd 2 005
,.4% V
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
October 18, 2000
6. Committee Member Reynolds stated it is in conflict with the
Secretary of Interior State Guidelines as stated.
7. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they could meet with the
HPC to discuss this.
8. Management Analyst Britt Wilson stated the Council receives
copies of the minutes and staff could relay any concerns of the
Committee.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if that is it and it is fully
approved by the HPC and City Council, why is it before this
Committee? Staff stated for approval of the funding request.
Management Analyst Wilson stated it is difficult to separate the
review of the architecture and approval of the funding, but that is
the way the Ordinance is set up. Planning Manager di lorio stated
the Mr. Cetina had been going through the approval process for
the patio cover when the funding became available. Committee
Member Bobbitt stated his concern that the applicant is stuck in
between the HPC and ALRC.
10. Mr. Cetiina asked if he could take it back to the HPC. Management
Analyst Wilson stated yes, he could resubmit his application.
11. Committee Member Cunningham asked Mr. Cetina what he would
like to do. Mr. Cetina stated he wanted the structure to be flat
with the the work, but the HPC did not want the tile so they went
to the lattice. Committee Member Cunningham stated the ALRC
agrees that it should be flat to work with the posts, :slump stone
columns and trellis. If they would deny it, would it have to go
back to the HPC, Council and then back to the ALRC? Staff
stated yes. Committee Member Cunningham stated this change
would be here for a long time and is a major part of its appearance
and the ALRC feels strongly that the architecture is wrong. Staff
stated the recommendation is for funding not architectural
approval. If the application does not meet the point system the
applicant can resubmit to the HPC, Council, and ALRC.
12. Committee Member Bobbitt stated it seems the ALRC's opinion is
not important in regard to the architecture. Staff explained that in
this case it has not been submitted to the ALRC for architectural
review. The building elevations and landscaping may come back
to the ALRC for their review. Discussion followed regarding the
process. c
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC to-18-OO.wpd 3 006
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
October 18, 2000
13. Committee Member Reynolds asked what would happen if the
ALRC would took no action. Staff stated it would then have to go
to the Council.
14. Committee Member Cunningham stated he thought if it was
resubmitted to the HPC they would probably agree with the ALRC
recommendation. The choice is up to the applicant based on the
ALRC's grading value.
15. Management Analyst Wilson reviewed the Committee's grading on
the project for grading for the funding criteria worksheet which
received a final score of 7 which does not qualify for the funding.
The applicant now has the option to redesign and resubmit the
project.
16. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there is a problem with the
system and it is not fair to the applicant to put them through this.
17. Committee Member Cunningham stated this is a new program and
apologized to the applicant for making him go through this, but he
could not vote for the design as submitted. In the end the building
will be there for a long time and if he resubmits he should get
what he wants.
B. Site Development Permit 99-664; a request of Tiburon Homes for review
of production home landscaping plans for the Norman Course, north of
Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street.
Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no objections. The plant
palette is standard for what is used in the desert. He had asked
staff if CVWD had requested any direction toward drought tolerant
plants. Staff stated no. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what
type of control system will be used on the irrigation. Mr. Peter
Jacobs, Marvin Homes, stated they are stand alone; clocks and
homeowners maintain the clocks. Committee Member Bobbitt
asked if the units were condos or single family. Staff :stated single
family. Mr. Jacobs stated the homeowner owns the front yard but
it is maintained by HOA.
C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-I8-OO.wpd 4
.J.0 0 0 1
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
October 18, 2000
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion
2000-019, recommending approval of the project as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
Vill. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Cunningham/Reynolds to adjourn this special meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on November 1, 2000.
This meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m. on October 18, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
C:AMv Docmnents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-18-OO.wpd 5
<.,-0 008
ARCHITECTURE
STAFF REPORT
e ICI
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
NOVEMBER 1, 2000
SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-045, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2000-677
EVERGREEN - LA QUINTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CORNOYER HEDRICK
TKD ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
FOR A 7.63 ACRE WALGREENS AND TWO CONCEPTUAL
OFFICE BUILDINGS.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USES
BACKGROUND:
SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND
WASHINGTON STREET.
CURRENT: COMMERCIAL OFFICE
PROPOSED: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
NORTH: LDR/VACANT
SOUTH: LA QUINTA EVACUATION CHANNEL
EAST: MDR & GOLF/THE FAIRWAYS
WEST: MDR & GOLF/DUNA LA QUINTA
The site is a triangular parcel of 7.6 acres which is bordered on the south and east by
the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The site has been heavily impacted by improvement
of the Washington Street bridge, and no significant landscaping currently occurs on
it. The parcel is currently 6 to 8 feet below grade of 50th Avenue and Washington
Street, and is proposed to be filled to within approximately 2 feet of road grade.
REQUEST:
There are two components to the proposed project. First, a Specific Plan has been
submitted for the entire site, which details the construction of the Walgreens building
on the northwestern corner of the property, but only provides conceptual plans for the
I.a.0u 009
two proposed office buildings which will be located on the eastern side of the
property. The second component currently under review is the Site Development
Permit for the Walgreens building only. Site Development Permits will be required for
the two office buildings prior to their construction.
The building architecture for the proposed Walgreens is Mediterranean, with tile roofs
along the parapet, and a tower structure at the northwest corner of the building. A
series of arcades supported by stucco columns with cantera stone bases have also
been proposed for the west, north and south elevations. HVAC equipment is to be
located on the building roof. A loading dock occurs on the eastern elevation.
A similar conceptual architecture is proposed for the office buildings, but will require
additional review when plans are further developed.
Landscaping for the project focuses on drought tolerant plantings, and is proposed to
include 24 and 36 inch box: trees, and a variety of shrubs and ground cover.
FINDINGS:
The Committee is required to comment on the following findings:
Architectural Design - The architectural design of the project, including but not limited
o the architectural style, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof
style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding
development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city.
The building architecture is typical of the Mediterranean architecture found elsewhere
in the City. The tower elernent includes columns which, although extending to the
roofline, are covered in Cantera stone for the first 7 to 8 feet. Although the intent was
likely to provide some variety and detail, the use of the stone on the base of the
columns results in the columns appearing insufficient, and a visual break which makes
the top of the tower appear to be floating. In order to add to the appearance of
substance, the columns within the tower element should be stucco from base to roof,
and should be redesigned to include a pedestal and base which broaden the base and
give further substance. A condition of approval has been added to this end.
The applicant was asked by staff for a photo simulation, taken from the top of the
Washington Street bridge, down onto the property. The applicant has declined to
provide the simulation. Staff is concerned that the view from the bridge down onto the
site will be obtrusive, and will be primarily of a large, flat rooftop and mechanical
equipment. A condition of approval has been added which requires that all mechanical
equipment be enclosed within either stucco finished structures or lattice structures,
unless it can clearly be demonstrated that the mechanical equipment will riot be visible
from the bridge.
.J_!J 010
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, provide an overall unifying influence,
enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project
area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use.
The proposed landscaping plan includes substantial landscaping treatment along the
perimeter of the property. Landscaping adjacent to the western elevation of the
Walgreens building, however, is limited to palm trees only. No groundcover or shrubs
are provided against the building. The elevations provided do not match the landscape
plan. Landscaping shown on the elevations does not occur on the landscape plan. In
order to provide relief to the building mass, and improve the aesthetics of the building,
staff would recommend the; addition of landscaping as follows:
1. Replace 50% of the palm trees on the western side of the building with canopy
trees. Tree wells are to be of sufficient size to include groundcover.
2. Add landscaping at the northwest corner of the building, both canopy trees and
shrubs and groundcover.
The landscaping plan includes perimeter landscaping on all sides of the property. The
parkway landscaping will provide significant screening from the street, and visual relief
through the use of larger canopy trees. A sloping parkway has been provided on the
50th Avenue frontage to compensate for grade changes. No berrning or slope is
proposed for the Washington Street frontage. Berming on the Washington Street
frontage would provide a more interesting character for the parkway, and would be
more consistent with other parkway treatments along Washington Street. The project
has been conditioned to revise its landscape plan to include berming on the
Washington Street frontage.
In conclusion, the findings needed to recommend approval of this request can be
made, with the modifications discussed above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the architectural style and
landscaping plan for Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677,
subject to the following conditions:
1 . The columns in the tower element shall be redesigned to eliminate the canters
stone face, provide a stucco finish from the roof to the ground, and add a base
and pedestal of greater bulk to give them substance.
.a,01: oil
2. Landscaping along the entire 50th Avenue, Washington Street and Evacuation
Channel frontages shall be installed prior to occupancy of the Walgreens
building.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
A. Berming one foot to three feet in height shall be incorporated into the
Washington Street frontage.
B. 50% of the palm trees on the western side of the building shall be
replaced with canopy trees. Tree wells are to be of sufficient size to
include groundcover.
C. Landscaping at the northwest corner of the building shall be
supplemented with canopy trees, shrubs and groundcover.
4. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Attachments:
1 . Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Elevations Walgreens
4. Elevations Office Building
Prepared by:
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Submitted by:
01 Z � Z L-1- Christine di lorio, PI � ing'Manager
is 012
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2000
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-685
REQUEST: BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPING PLANS
FOR A 3,984 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE
AND GAS STATION WITH 5,504 SQUARE FOOT
CANOPY
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND
WASHINGTON STREET
APPLICANT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES,
STEVE FRANK, PROJECT MANAGER
ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: VACANT
SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
EAST: VACANT
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
LEMNIRLIFUS111� 1791
The currently vacant project site, located at the northwest corner of Highway 111
and Washington Street, consists of 1.14 acres. The project site is within Point Happy
Specific Plan 2000-043, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2000, which establishes
guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land
uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and
requirements for public improvements. The Design Guidelines portion of the Plan
provides specific design criteria which includes Architectural Guidelines utilizing a
contemporary interpretation of Colonial Spanish style architecture; and Landscape
Guidelines that complement and accent the project with perimeter landscaping which
is consistent the Highway Design Guidelines.
013
The convenience store and gas station structure is proposed with a (Parapet roof for
the main portion of the building with 26 feet clay tile gable roof tower and a 22 foot
gable roof tower in the northeast end of the structure. Each of the two towers will
be highlighted with a stone veneer wainscot. Wall material consists of smooth
troweled pearl white stucco with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each
elevation and cantilever wood beams projecting approximately six feet and lattice
work for vine planting over the main entry. The facade will have a proposed arcade
supported by stucco columns with stone veneer bases. Proposed windows will be
single pane bronze tinted glass with anodized frame. The proposed upper tower
windows will be recessed 12 inches.
The proposed rear elevation metal man doors are highlighted with clay tile gable roof
supported by pilasters with stone veneer bases. Espalier for vine planting that
softens the blank wall surface are proposed on the front, rear, and left elevations.
Each tower element is enhanced with decorative wrought iron grille work on the
second story.
The proposed gas station canopy will be 22 feet high with a mansard roof supported
by steel beams that are stucco finished over the sheet metal with stone veneer trim
to match the convenience :store.
The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs,
groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters; and
along Highway 111 ( as required by Specific Plan approval). Palm trees will line the
left edge of the project access road and two landscape planter areas with shrubs and
trees helps to delineate the right edge of the access road. Water efficient (landscaping
materials, including native plants are provided. The landscape plan is consistent with
the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements the Highway 111 landscaping.
WI�,L A
The Committee is required to comment on the following findings:
Architectural Design =The architectural design of the project, including but not limited
o the architectural style, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof
style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding
development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city.
The project is consistent with the Architectural Guidelines in the Point Happy Specific
Plan 2000-043 including building massing and scale, architectural features and
details, and roof treatment for the convenience store.
014
The canopy for the gas station is generally consistent with the Architectural
Guidelines in the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 including building massing and
scale; however staff is concerned that the mansard canopy roof appears to be an
add -on element without being integral to the overall canopy design. The canopy
should be redesigned with the fascia and cornice trim and deleting the mainsard roof.
Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval be added to the project.
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, provide an overall
unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the
surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use.
The proposed landscaping plan includes adequate landscaping treatment along the
perimeter of the building and parking lot. The palette plant material is compatible with
the proposed design and the Specific Plan.
*41011,Ll 6_0r• •�
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the architectural style and
landscaping plan for Specific Plan 2000-685, subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of building permits, the canopy design shall be revised as
follows: The canopy shall be redesigned with the fascia and cornice trim with
the mansard roof deleted.
Attachment:
1 . Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Elevations
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
040TJI�
Christine di lorio
Planning Manager
1.2.(Jill 01�
BI #C
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2000
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2000-071
CHANGE OF ZONE (ZC) 2000-096)
VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2000-04
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) 2000-402)
REQUEST: BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPING
PLANS FOR AN 11,900 SQUARE FOOT SQUARE
FOOT RESTAURANT
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE:
&1;t0lij 0r
NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT
CLUB DRIVE
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, LLC
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
NORTH: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL.
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
EAST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
The currently vacant project site of 4.18 acres, is located at the northeast corner of
Avenue 52 And Desert Club Drive. The site is currently zoned Low Density Residential
and the applicant is also requesting the City to amend the General Plan and Zoning
Designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial. The site is adjacent and
across Avenue 52 from The Tradition Club.
W75441111111,MsTaTem.
The architecture of the restaurant is reminiscent of an early California or Spanish
structure and utilizes russet blend colored two piece mission clay tile roofing, white
smooth hand troweled mission plaster walls, tan stackable concrete columns, brown
- _ J„ 016
wood sash windows and doors, precast stone veneer below some windows, and
brown wood trellis'. The structure is irregular is shape and uses a variety of roof
types and heights, with a maximum height of 22 feet at the tower entry to the
restaurant facing the southwest. The balance of the structure varies frorn 16 to 20
feet high. A majority of the windows are shaded by the trellis` or colonnade. A
gable tile roof porte' cochere is provided over the passenger drop off and valet area
at the entry. A 800 square foot full basement is provided for a wine cellar and
private dining near the center of the restaurant.
The Landscape Planting Plan provides a pallette of plant material for shrubs,
groundcover, and trees. At the access drive off of Desert Club, California Pepper
trees provide a canopy entrance Mesquite trees line the perimeter of the project site
along Avenue 52 and the north edge of the parking lot; and in planter areas
throughout the parking lot. At the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club and
surrounding the building and outdoor dining, shrubs, groundcover, and trees are
integrated into a unique landscape golf experience concept. The landscaping
concept enhances the building design and includes a putting green, lakes, and
pedestrian paths with connecting bridges. Undulating mounding (3-4 foot) is
provided in this area to buffer Avenue 52 and Desert Club; the mounding extends
along Avenue 52 buffering the east portion of the parking lot.
FINDINGS:
The Committee is required to comment on the following findings:
Architectural Design -_The architectural design of the project, including but not limited
to the architectural style, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof
style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding
development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city.
The project is compatible with surrounding development in that it is mainly residential
in appearance and will be consistent with the Village Design Guidelines including
building massing and scale, architectural features and details, color, and roof
treatment and the quality of prevalent surrounding design.
Landscape ape 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, provide an overall
unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the
surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use.
The proposed landscaping plan includes adequate landscaping treatment along the
perimeter of the building and parking lot. The palette plant material is compatible with
the proposed design and Zoning Code requirements
MKOIA11,112101•• •
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the architectural style and
landscaping plan for VillagE� Use Permit 2000-04.
Attachment:
1. Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Elevations
Prepared by:
-owe
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
�/0
hristine di lorio
Planning Manager
BI #D
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
NOVEMBER 1, 2000
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-655
STEVEN WALKER HOMES
C:HARLES TROWBRIDGE AND ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR MODEL
HOMES, APPROVED PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS,
AND COMMON AREAS
LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN TRACT 29347 IN SPECIFIC
FLAN 90-015 (NORMAN COURSE)
BACKGROUND:
The architectural plans for these prototype plans was originally reviewed by the ALRC
on January 5, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2000,
subject to conditions. As required, the applicant has submitted landscaping and
irrigation plans for the units for your recommendation to the Planning Commission.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted typical planting and irrigation plans for the landscaping
of the three prototype plans, model complex, and common areas around the tract.
Within the front yard area between the building and street curb, four 2'.4" box size
trees are provided the balance of the yard is planted in five gallon shrubs with lawn
close to the curb and in areas within the courtyards (Attachment 1). The side yards
use gravel, while rear yards have one 24" box tree near the side property line. Shrub
planting is used adjacent Ito the rear of the units with lawn blending into the golf
course. All of the front yards face east or north.
The three model units are planted in a similar manner but are upgraded in tree sizes
(48" box size) and quantities and shrub quantities (Attachment 2). In the rear yard
each lot will have a swimming pool.
The common area to be landscaped is the parkway across the street from the 39 lots
being developed by the applicant. This area partially borders the Monroe Street
perimeter wall (Attachment 1). The planting is a combination of trees, shrubs, and
s\stan\:alrc rpt sdp 99-665.wpd 111.1.j u 010
groundcover, with trees varying from 15 gallon to 36" box size. The plant pallette is
also the same as that used for the residences.
Plant material includes many of those included in the Norman Course Specific Plan
plant pallette, as well as others which are compatible and used in this area. The
majority of the plants are low water or relatively low water users that have colorful
flowers, leaves, or growth patterns.
FINDING:
As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Committee is required to review and comment on the following landscaping finding:
1. At least one specimen tree (min. 24-inch box size (minimum 2.5" caliper), and
minimum 10 feet tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front
yard or street side yard.
Response:
The proposed landscaping plans will be required to provide a minimum of one
24" box size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at least three
additional trees and other shrubs and groundcover.
STAFF COMMENTS•
The landscaping plans are well designed, use attractive plant material, and will be
compatible with surrounding development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the landscaping plans for Site
Development Permit 99-665, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Prior to the beginning of plant installation, submit to Community Development
Department clearance of irrigation and planting plans from Coachella Valley
Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
2. Prior to the beginning of plant installation, submit to Community Development
Department provide calculations verifying compliance with Chapter 8.13, Water
Efficient Landscaping, of the Municipal Code.
3. Specify on plans that 24" box size trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5
inches.
s\stan\:alrc rpt sdp 99-665.wpd �20
Attachment:
1. Front yard and perimeter wall landscaping plans
2. Model complex landscaping plans
3. Location map
Prepared by:
v.. tom. Ja wr%—
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio,Planning Manager
�•.i 021
s\stan\:alrc rpt sdp 99-665.wpd
ATTACHMENTS 1 & 2 ARE
LARGE PLANS
022
ATTACH M NT 3
LOT G� �I T --COMMON AREA TO BE LANDS APE
40
LOT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
95 OT B- 1! �
BROWN DEER PARK Jill
21
GOLF COURSE 21 LOT D
1'3
45.209ACRES 2~
Lu
25
LOTS TO BEI DEVELOPED >- 26
—Q 27
28
19 ®
-- TIBURON I �41 �''
-- ___- -- -1-1 L__ DRIVE c 332 O
-- m 33 ail (Op�oZ
Z 34 i �i 0
36
37 —.34
GOLF C��NJ��C - LOl
39
------LOT ®-----------------------------------------
LOCATION MAP
BROOKFIELD HERITAGE, INC.
..,,.; 1j 023
BI #E
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE:
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2000
CASE NO.: N.A.
APPLICANT: MARY HOPE FRANCO
LA QUINTA VIDEO AND PAGING
REQUEST: FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM TO INSTALL NEW LANDSCAPING, FENCE, AND
AWNING/LIGHTING/SIGN
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENIDA LA FONDA AT AVENIDA BERMUDAS
(78-040 AVENIDA LA FONDA)
BACKGROUND:
Ms. Franco has submitted an application under the Commercial Property Improvement
Program (CPIP) seeking funding to install new landscaping, fencing and a new
awning/sign for the La Quinta Video and Paging store (Attachment 1). Nls. Franco is
the property tenant.
Based on the application, the applicant is proposing various landscaping upgrades
including but not limited to reseeding the lawn, replacing an old wood fence, installing
a water fountain, and installing twenty 5-gallon plants and 25 flats of flowers. When
originally submitted, the application did not have the awning/sign component. During
staff's preliminary review of the property, it was noted that the unshielded lights on
the existing sign were non -conforming. Upon advising the applicant that she would
have to address the lights prior to the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency ("Agency")
considering her application, she agreed to get a bid for new lighting. That turned out
to be a proposal for an awning/sign that is now incorporated into the application. The
applicant is seeking $8,389 with the applicant being responsible for 110% of that
amount. The actual details of the financing, subject to the program limitations, will
be negotiated through the rebate agreement entered into by and between the Agency
and the applicant.
As with other applications, a Funding Criteria worksheet is attached to this staff report
(Attachment 2) to facilitate scoring of the project.
If approved by the ALRC:, the application will be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for identification of appropriate planning approvals, if any.
.�.0 ;j k 0 2 4
After receiving all appropriate City approvals, the Agency will enter into a rebate
agreement with the applicant.
The applicant has been made aware of this meeting and has indicated that she will be
present at the November 1"ALRC meeting.
Prepared and submit ed by:
— 4�4 G,
Britt W. Wilson, Mana4ement Analyst
City Manager's Office
Attachments:
1. CPIP application: Fischer -Village Park Animal Hospital
2. Funding Criteria worksheet
G:\MyData\WPDocs\CPIP\ALRCSTAFFREPORTFRANCO-VIDEO 11-01-OO.wpd
025
.4.0u, 026
ATTACHMENT 7
-91 La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
Commercial Property Improvement Program Application
applicant Information
pplicant Name: — IMCI�.�.IDP fi fJ C.0
Pplicant Phone: t�Q,�Q Applicant E-Mail:
ameof Business: Lcl Gltl n t1U UI Cfe9 Nord PAGING
tailing Address: 7RoL4o Avenida La roncAa Lct Gkunfq
usiness Phone: Business Fax:-IWSUL4 LN7(6
roperty Owner. Yes: _ No:
usiness Owner. Yes: L/_ No:
roject information
usiness Location: �Ro4o Atifn1c(Q LQ RndaLQ116)1iC[
ype of Business: _ 1t�f0 RPR iaI Pj4Q7ff 2, aleL
roject coals: L p n circa m; n q/ N fW Fe n ce
otal Project Cost (please attach cost estimate): `1':>W 1` �00t
equested Agency Assistance:. 1 f�_ Applicant Budget Amount
escription of Applicant Funding Sources:
mposed Project Duration: _
lonbcu?-6 t. fw,t . Side oF-P�;re`x lam, ciober
ttachments L ck
Two (2) color photographs of tie property when; improvements will be installed
Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level)
i Cost estimates
i
ertification Statements
the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, the following certification must be completed
+ the property owner.
Sc L declare under penalty and perjury that I am the owner of
operty involved in this application. I acknowledge that only one (1) tenant of the subject property
volved in this applicaton may Ite awarded program funding in any one (1) given fiscal year.
gnature: Date: — D8
,e following state4t must be completed by the applicant and property owner,
ve acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all above information's true and coned
the best of mylour knowledge and bef'ieL Uwe understand that a Building Improvement Rebate
3reement must be signed and authorized by the La Ouinta Redevelopment Agency prior to
mmencing any work on the project
gnature: Date:
gnature: Date: ��)—CO
r- 0 2
�, 4
�' � v �
�x
L.
�a acienfa
Nursery an cape
I I C M740574
80-900M11mA, LLI� !oU 1.11 I.177
Indio, CA 91701 bn !G0 14: OI1t8
AV
1 1
1rrAL4✓�..
02C
0
A
`Y ♦ n
t
{.
Fr
i'
hiu
i. i
fYi
a4
`
r
i
;r
ra
�k1
A
w5
.�_�,, 030
STATEMENT
ti s h"roc. Z
841225
DATE _O\--
TO[�
c-� e n \\" �l C,
\
TERMS
INACCOUNT WITH
oc�
6
pp
5
GAddRS 25812
�� czQc�vrrt[a
LANDSCAPE
BRAD WRANKLE
78-670 Hwy.1ll,Ste 165 Ph:(760) 345-5767
La Quinca, CA 92253 PR: (760) 797"5141
i
1
WI WIKI❑ faF O1TJ4J-OL0.] UUM UD UU 14-11 rUL
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAP> O OCT 5 M 2 26,
78.670 HWY. 111, Box 103
LaQuinta, CA 92253 CITY CF LA 00INIA
(760)345,8283 CITY "!,''' ;CEO F^ICF
October 5, odd
Attn: Hope
La Quinta Video and Paging
78-040 Ave. La Fonda
La Quinta, CA 92253
760- 364-2601
Landscape Installation
Remove some existing landscape and debris S500.00
Reseed lawn S550.00
Fence around left side of property
Includes: materials, labor and installation $350.00
Fountain
Install and purchase $950.00
6 Flower Pots $300.00
Flowers around property S475.00
25 flats
Border around flowered area $275.00
Trim trees $ 3 50.00
1 Bouganvillea $150.00
20 Plants - 5 gallon $600.00
TOTAL $4, 500.00
03l
Sr-7yv zi
�rn
oar
I
WAR
i^
V
( �Q STATEMENT
1 \
MANUELZ
53C)5Aveida MaderoSeNC®Uinta, Cofornia 9?253
LAN CLEANING La 9
AND COMPLETE HOE GRE
(760) 771-2525
-HE'S EVERYWHERE" Beeper (760) 862-8327
®� CHARGES
DESCRIPTION
DATE
MONTHLY MAINTENANCE FEE -ABSENTEE HOMEOWNERS CARE -
"I
co Ldl.
�' fI 1 4AY UST AMOUNT IN&owT PCuOrWo�JW
�,Y�.
THANK YOU
,GUNTRY „ .
N° 14179
CLUB i
AWNING
74-885 JONI DR., SUITE 6
1.I 1J'
BLIND
PALM
DESERT, CA 92260
(760) 346-SM / (760) 325 9664
FAX (760) 568-1470
State Lic.#709907
NAME Hope (� w" �I `U PHONE)
DATE
ADDRESS O I O V . I Ji l J8_�i 1 l ih �Y (� l VS
ZIP a�
_—
DESCRIPTION
_ <
36` A. '
4
5 j31rc✓n:�e YGQI
t✓.�( Co7�c
6 (A
-o ff; t ge-
I
7
^�
8
10
KeE
l f r.
1314
i
15
16
_
t
TERMS ARE NET C1A6"H. PAYMENT IS DUE AND ,P,,{jYABILE IMMEDIATELY UPON it;(�1Jl ETI(�fi" F ,ista,.
ORDER. SPECIAL CUT QOODS ARE NON -CANCELLABLE,- - " f
This order is taken;; by the salesman subject to the acceptance by the sell r.`There} are no
cash Sale
iarice
conditions agreed upon whatsoever, verbal or otherwise, axcpl a"ritten he�eiqq
All drapery fabrics, figured, to in
bales
Tax
-rota,
plain or are subject variation shading, r�gqaYfd,ig and coloring, etc.
Samples suggest the goods to be delivered and are only typical of the general coloring:�3(�d rr)arldng..
contract
Drapery fabrics are subject to the effect of climatic changes and therefore finished-lepgtl�6vrel:
=ioepoeft
approximate and are guaranteed for thirty days from date of (nqqation.
geienCe "
Upon default in any term, condition or agreement on the WC f the buyer, the buyer agrees to pay
_'Due
all expenses necessary incurred In the cost of collection with or without suit, and in the event of suit,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Buyer acknowledges reoelpt of a copy of this agreement.
JJ
"Any controversy or claim arising outi of or n�2 d4to Ahfontract, or the
breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Uniform
Rates for Better Business Bureau Arbitration, and the judgement upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction
,...m thereof."
S(LLESPAN WCEPTED BY (SELLER) BUYER
03F
PALMS TO PINES CANVAS 1 :)
125 0 lS u u
69-640 SUGARLOAF AVE. #69 ! g � F�p2 9 2GiI
MOUNTAIN CENTER, CALIF. 92561
(760) 568-3993 • FAX (760) 349-3613
N° 2142
VOICE OA rSALESPERSON
SOLD TO: SHIP TO: (11 olhel era. SOLD TO)
JZ
1-7
YOUR ORDER N0.
DATE SHIPPED
SHIPPED VIA
F.0.8. POINT
TERMS
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
/I—C
yr�
I
I
I
1_
i
��✓� ��� Dl
LIGHTING a! S
BTOTA
lam_
d0
/�
CITY PERMITSFY /✓'2--FO lw y �2
TAX
6 0
U
RENDERING
COMMERCIAL,--
TOTA
RESIDENTIAL ❑ SIGNATURE OF APPROV k
FORM 1022 !- 036
p
Y:
SEFI-25-2000 02:09 FM AMERICAN PLANING COMPANY 76032sre4> --
P.W Ne. � el i Pips.
American Awning Co. ®� A
44499 Town Center Way OD 194
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
(760) 322.7433 FAX (760) 323.7349
i0 )•—O� QQ1Y�CA v'I 1.490 /Ar-JI Ct� \N
0�{p
v �lv10ts
PHONE
JOB NAME I LOCATION
-), / );:,-,N-r
irJ e N e-7 ,fly, Ikwn6z 6Nf�
svpp�b
' B tN �t1x 4r k-t y. (�i fv (� ro rlr 1: V' �- i, r., c 1.,j a-Q.s
0- t If ,jioiC '�G
( r �a~r� �fJ U¢r5U GJ
�GoeL)--t�2601 Mplr,A;q. ,c (CC\Gt�l
z' �;L,z tJ�P--t"->�s\c.r�,s� � 2coo� wtiT f�c.c�11 L� r 'JI ►�` r,
Yne LAX `` W2ic�a rh1->1, S rv{r-t"LrUI r��/J'!e,(� L ' DbI `J re
,,� I.{y.� a„ `.�-- kAe � d CJ7N ►.teU I D�J.f PA\tJ^K� s1� v�¢v'! V U �v �L W � $. ��2-�
sce'r LT, stp-; pss i s �N J AA.A�.�,•
fi r, -ja provlAe G 1 rdv��e}- �, pOJ,Ar�r �ovrCe-
:��Nfw L'JL 1-13 C-\.A'-� , (i-)L)�ZIyCyA�r, `1 UtDC�Z� AN� TA Gri RI (T &'"T/
O� aSiSN�Z p�s�N jCG 6& Swwf�lti
,as
I\ C4 Ntt Ud cwl q-�
For the l;urnIII
THIS ESTIMATE IS POP COMPLETING THE JOB AS DESCRIBED III NOTE: PIJs 85b ala may Lv wilts
ABOVE. IT IS BA-k ON OUINR EVALUATION AND DOES NOT IN drawn Dv W
CLUDE MAAT!TEnIAL PRICE CREASES OR ADDITIONAL LAOON I
ANO M111AL5 WHICH MAV BE BIEOUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN
PROBLEMS OP ADVERSE WEATHER DONDITIONS ARISE AFTER ESTIMATED BI
THE WORK NAS STAPTED.
. 1. n 3
ATTACHMENT 2
FUNDING CRITERIA WORKSHEET
BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS:
This includes the reconstruction or removal and replacement of structurally unsound or non-
conforming uses (i.e. signs), and other improvements that enhance the general appearance
of the subject property.
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
SCALE AND QUALITY OF FACADE IMPROVEMENTS:
This may include the reconstruction or removal and replacement of signs, awnings/canopies,
exterior wall finishes, doors and windows, decorative roof treatments, and landscaping to the
entrance and visible sides of the subject property. Sensitivity to adjacent land uses must be
considered.
_ 25
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
STIMULATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT:
Proposed improvements must make the Project Area more attractive and visible to customers,
neighboring merchants, and residents. Special consideration of up to 10 additional points will
be provided for those improvements related to the creation of new businesses, or the
expansion or relocation of existing businesses within the Project Area.
10
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
OTHER:
This may include improvements related to historic preservation, unique structural and site
design, and the promotion of cultural, educational, and/or recreational opportunities.
_ 10
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
APPLICANT MATCHING FUNDS:
Applicants may receive up to 5 points for exceeding the required 10% applicant funding
match.
_ 10
Scale 0-5 points x Category Weight = weighted score
Total of all weighted scores: _ divide by 10 = (FINAL SCORE)
(70 points required to receive funding)
03F
81 #F
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE:
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2000
CASE NO.: N.A.
APPLICANT: MICHAEL/ANNIE FISCHER
VILLAGE PARK ANIMAL HOSPITAL
REQUEST: FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM TO CONSTRUCT A BLOCK WALL
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA (77-895 AVENIDA
MONTEZUMA)
BACKGROUND:
The Fischers have submitted an application under the Commercial Property
Improvement Program (CPIP) seeking funding for the construction of a block wall near
the property line between the Village Park Animal Hospital and the La Quinta Historical
Society Museum (Attachment 1). The Fischers own the parcel of land on which the
Village Park Animal Hospital stands.
Based on the application, the applicant is proposing a concrete block wall that will be
stuccoed and topped off with a "red brick cap" and the construction of a rear gate of
wrought iron. The applicant is seeking $15,000; however, staff would propose that
they may only obtain funding allowable under the program limits (i.e. a maximum of
$15,000 based on actual costs and the applicant must pay 10% of the actual cost).
The actual details of the financing, subject to the program limitations, will be
negotiated through the rebate agreement entered into by and between the La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and the applicant.
As with other applications, a Funding Criteria worksheet is attached to this staff report
(Attachment 2) to facilitate scoring of the project.
If approved by the ALRC, the application will be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for identification of appropriate planning approvals, if any.
After receiving all appropriate City approvals, the Agency will enter into a rebate
agreement with the applicant.
The applicants have been made aware of this meeting and have indicated that one or
both will be present at the November 1" ALRC meeting.
, ; 031(3
Preejpared and submitted by:
'�F
" 9 Id
Britt W. Wilson, Management Analyst
City Manager's Office
Attachments:
CPIP application: Fischer -Village Park Animal Hospital
Funding Criteria worksheet
G:\MyData\WPDocs\CPI P\ALR CSTAFFREPORTFI SCHER 11-01-OO.wpd
. 04�
�.: 041
ATTACHMENT 1
La Quanta Redevelopment Agency
Commercial Property Improvement Program Application
Applicant Information
Applicant Name: _I� t c••IIk /i C.l / 7 E SC A &-/I
Applicant Phone: �III Applicant E-Mail: /99I•(7SC61e/-M0
_u
Name of Business: r I Inge
Mailing Address: `7 7 F>'9� u�Nrcfr� 2P,mu
Business Phone: :MQ.5YGV 3 833 Business Fax:
Property Owner. Yes:_ No:
Business Owner. Yes: _ No: t-
Project Information r1
Business Location: _'7 �/ ?Cf5 �UeNrc�g Moo
Type of Business: J,PP r, � is rJJi..,4,,. Ho SD/ )L � i
Project Goals: o C—
�
'1o-P/'00 er'ty I?NC
pU
Total Project Cost (please attach cost estimate)'
Requested Agency Assistance: _ - Applicant Budget Amalq/t
Description of Applicant Funding Sources: oJ41,v.�
r
Proposed Project Duration: f 2L& {
Attachments
• Two (2) color photographs of the property where improvements will be installed
• Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level)
• Cost estimates
Certification Statements
If the applicant's not the owner of the subject property, the following codification must be completed j
by theme/q)ropeyd;wner.(�,
1. k ik eclare under penalty and perjury that 1 am the owner of
property involved in this application. I acknowledge that only one (1) tenant of the subject property,
involved in this application rmay,be awarded program funding o a/qy one (1) given fiscal year. I
SignaWre��'.11' q a/ dDate:
The following statement must be completed by the applicant and property owner.
Vice acknowledge the fling of this application and certify that all above information is true and correct
to the best of mylour knowledge and belief. Vwe understand that a Building Improvement Rebate
Agreement must be signed and authorized by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Prior to
commencing any the p tact
Signature: i Gr Date: Y�- .Y•a�l
x I
Sig
nDate:
I
_a,i j 042
g
00
044
i
UC. NO. 497604
SiEUE ELLIN61MN MRSONR4
68.675 Pancrama Road
Cathedral Chy, CA 92234
PROPOSAL AlID CONTRACT
Date B-8-00
(780) 320•8401
Fax (760)320-8831
The undersigned, propose to famish the materials and perform the Lhor. for rise a eetfost sad completion of the fallnWinit:
1401x616" hi h siumptstone block wall with Sack finish an3
brick cap.
Masonry construction as set forth in Section(s) NA of the specifications and in acoordanov wNh plans
as furnished by NA _ dat,& _ NA and_ NA
on building erected for Annie Fisher
owrar —�
tot Rleck Tract Village Park Animal Hospital
No. 77895 Street Montezuma o( .�_ _
La u —city in §T„��__ State of C+Itfomla,
7%ecentnctpricers(g 15,250.(I _ Fifteen thou an t"__hundred fif r�
Payable es follows: Ninety per camt (904)6) of the value of the week covered by this contract, completed each month, dur
and payable by the tenth day of the month following, 7%e ten percent (lo,/c) balance due and payable within thirtv.Sve
(36) days after completion of the work covered by this 000treer, In the event that the sums called for in this contract are not paid when due and payable, they shall be cmdared delinquent accounts and the masonry contractor shall be entitled
to add cote per. cent ( lab) interest per month m all delinquent accounte.
This proposal and contract shall not ineltrde any of the following: Furnishing of placing of at") sash er
door frames, shoring for openings and bend beams, water or electricity used dunng construction, or peraita.
Price includc0l. removal of cxt. fence,bruah 1e016va1 U Ljti,U
spoils removal,saw cutting of asphalt,paintina of wall and
20' wide double gate,
Price does notJoglude permi L ^_
The terms of ownpletion of the work provided hereunder doll be extended for the extent of delovs caused by inclement
weather, strikes, accidents, delays of carrier, shortages of rrateriels and labor, actions by labor unions, and other delays
onavofdable or beyond control of the mason contractor. 'ITN, above quatatiom are made for immediate occepta,wc and ar'
sobleet to change unless ao accepted. It is further agreed ttat should the undersigned bring any nction to enforce th,•
terms or conditions hereof, or if be is called upon to defend illy action brought to enforce the terms or conditions hcrari.
he shall be entiled to a reasomble sum for ationneys fees ind costs incurred as a nrsult of such action. It h understixui
and earned that acceptance of this proposal shall constitute a contract, upon actual nonce of such acceptance to the un-
dersigned, All condition on the reverse side of this proposal am incorparsied into and become a part of this proposal an.l
contrF4,
Respectfully submitted,
Date 8-8-00
91T:WLLIMN NRV
ACCEPTANCE:TUF
The above proposal is hereby accepted thi• day of
046
Vrn inanl Page No. of
i K.T. CONSTRUCTION
„ Patios • Remodeling
t� Concrete • New Construction
IA QUINTA, CA 92253
CA St. Cont. Uc. B-1 0421915
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
PHONE
DATE
STREET
JOB NAME '
-
CITY, ST T ANO 11P C D r
_
JOB LOC,TION !/!
ARCHITECT_
DATE Or PLANS
JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates lor.
t
v l
'—
r....... .� j._-. .............. ................................. ............ .__
Mr Prop i3r hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
dollars )
�
zymenl}o be made arlollows:
All maturical is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices. Any aderatian or deviation from above specificY Authorized �- j�,^/�,� f .
Signetuf2
tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, end will become an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents it
Notee : This proposal may be
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance.
Our workers are fully covered Dy Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us If not accepted within—_ days.
Arrrptaurr of proposal— The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance: Signature
09;08/2000 11:49
7603600273
BARAJAS MASONRY
PAGE 01
Proposal
llCerrea WA maeo
42.901 LIMA HALL AD. ! BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92201 /
PF30POSAL SUBMITTED TO:
rpb
7fYr7.3'Vi9,0
345-3912 FAX 360-0273
!FILE NO. 1535
Dew M Plena:
Wa heresy auamh apeciflcatlong and oatlmsuag far.. Masonry wallto replace existing chain link fence.
Well to meet City Codes. Wall est. 140 ft. x 6'8" high.
Includes: Fence & brush removal, saw cut asphalt where necessary, footings spoils removal,
Excludes: Permit fees, survey and asphalt patching.
Plaster finish wall to match existing - $ i 1,3o4,0o
Slumpstone wall, water washed, painted with brick cap - $ 12,371,00
Rear gate, 20' wide:, double swing, painted to match wall = $ 1,750.00
ee.Fn MYan01.^�_
antw
Fvo q 50oile W^.rnww
>k,nr; N�r1f14Ytllllr
_..,••••-�.nxm
Ir.
W1 inn.
Na NPP11=4
?Nervy o1a6l.W
._A._
Pon
x
Raper
X
_
Rvugh Prvdng 6 060mil
x
sn .R Metenel
x
Snerin9la0Cr
9eranwb, Raves
x
I Foallnq Comyaal.n I X
— �..
All labor RacoasPry Mr aamPlargs of Ahve,lw the
. Shown Above dollars 4
... _.... ._.....�—._..___ O _ iS
with paymkmk �t,x rrut, a Mn fcE!C � _19%�1wn. balal'tcg,_t�gp_ g, letion and 1ccc!rrtan�r
Authorizad Gigr Lure
J aralas
NOTE: This proposal may be withdrawn us if not accepted in writing Wthln ten (10) days.
-- AOC,Rf?ANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above FIk(u, uPovRr.:'ih'cnm and aDnilt'a'1a !ins csti wtrny end am tlarytly 0=90ed. You are authorized to do the WQrK as
spaodicd. Pe+m p.nt will ha nWil) 4s aMin&i Pbovc.
Acaaptw: ._-, _.._. _......_.—._.__ ^ signature .�_..._.
onto �.. � .., .__.—.. b'IgnaNra
04S
r
1 050
ATTACHMENT 2
FUNDING CRITERIA WORKSHEET
BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS:
This includes the reconstruction or removal and replacement of structurally unsound or non-
conforming uses (i.e. signs), and other improvements that enhance the general appearance
of the subject property.
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
SCALE AND QUALITY OF FACADE IMPROVEMENTS:
This may include the reconstruction or removal and replacement of signs, awnings/canopies,
exterior wall finishes, doors and windows, decorative roof treatments, and landscaping to the
entrance and visible sides of the subject property. Sensitivity to adjacent land uses must be
considered.
25
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
STIMULATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT:
Proposed improvements must make the Project Area more attractive and visible to customers,
neighboring merchants, and residents. Special consideration of up to 10 additional points will
be provided for those improvements related to the creation of new businesses, or the
expansion or relocation of existing businesses within the Project Area.
10
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
OTHER:
This may include improvements related to historic preservation, unique structural and site
design, and the promotion of cultural, educational, and/or recreational opportunities.
10
Scale 0-10 points x Category Weight = weighted score
APPLICANT MATCHING FUNDS:
Applicants may receive up to 5 points for exceeding the required 10910 applicant funding
match.
10
Scale 0-5 points x Category Weight = weighted score
Total of all weighted scores: divide by 10 = (FINAL SCORE)
(70 points required to receive funding)
05a