The URL can be used to link to this page

2000 12 06 ALRCANVU'lM11'iq,.0 aD F 8,y OFT IV V ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE rim A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California December 6, 2000 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2000-026 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 November 1, 2000. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ....................... Applicant ................ Location ................. Request .................. Action .................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-686 Century -Crowell Communities West side of Jefferson Street between Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue Review of ten single family prototype architectural plans for a subdivision of 206 homes. Minute Motion 2000- ALRC/AGENDA ".J.0 V 0 01 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA December 6, 2000 B. Item ....................... COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2000-002 Applicant ................ David Cetina - El Ranchito Mexican Restaurant Location ................. South side of Calle Estado east of Avenida Bermudas (78-039 Calle Estado) Request .................. Funding request to install a patio cover and concrete work. Action .................... Minute Motion 2000- C. Item ....................... COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2000-005 Applicant ................ Charles Dunn Real Estate for Leroc Partners - Plaza Tampico Location ................. North side of Calle Tampico, east of Desert Club Drive (78-140 & 150 Calle Tampico) Request .................. Funding request for landscaping and irrigation. Action .................... Minute Motion 2000- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ALRC/AGENDA ,,J 002 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:05 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, Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. IL PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Reynolds to reorganize the agenda to move Agenda Item #C to Item #B and Item #B to Item #C. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of October 18, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to approve the minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Specific Plan 2000-045 Site Development Permit 2000-677; a request of Evergreen for review of landscaping plant pallette for a commercial office complex and land, and building elevations for a drugstore to be located at the southeast corner of 50`h Avenue and Washington Street. 1. 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. G:AWPD0CSVALRC11-1-OO.wpd f -�„� ,� W Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November I, 2000 2. Committee Member Dennis Cunningham asked if the applicant would like to address the Committee. Mr. Mike Peroni, Dudek and Associates, introduced Tom Doczi landscape architect, Mike Mokray with Dudek and Associates, Philip Cross with Evergreen, Chris Wiseman, architect for the project. Mr. Cross reviewed the major modifications that had been made. He explained they wanted to create an architecture that was compatible with La Quinta with a Spanish influence. With the proximity to the neighborhoods to the north and west of site, they wanted to create something that would reduce the visual scale and create a more human scale at the ground level. They started to introduce the cantera stone to serve as visual relief. He then went on to describe: the architecture. The office buildings will have a similar architectural character with color palettes that are similar. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff had concerns about the view from the Washington Street bridge looking down onto the roof; is staff satisfied? Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it was acceptable; the applicant has provided additional information to satisfy staff's concerns. Mr. Cross stated the view from the maximum height of the bridge, you will see a finished wall height. They have done sightline studies and from a five foot eye level at the parapet height, this site is six feet below the parapet. It is impossible to see on top of the roof. They kept within the 22 foot building height limit and are still convinced the mechanical equipment will be screened. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the "beefing" around the column base. Mr. Wiseman stated they would like to keep it as proposed. It adds color, texture, shadow play and mass instead of stucco coming down that could be damaged. The mass of the stone gives a more substantial appearance. Staff stated it was just the height of the columns. Mr. Wiseman stated the scale in terms of proportions, was designed to have it in thirds to pick up the critical line around the building. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be any advantage to widening out the base; he did like the use of the canters stone. 5. Committee Member Cunningham stated the issue to him was the height of the stone. Staff stated they wanted the architect to address this issue. Committee Member Cuningham stated that in using thirds, he agrees with the architect. A three foot column, however is substantial. The arch height is the same and the G:\WPDOCS\ALRC I I. 1-OO.wpd 2 '• l- 004 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1.2000 height of the cantera stone works well. It does add texture to the building and from a maintenance standpoint it will hold up better. Mr. Cross stated that especially at the entrance which will sustain the greatest damage, it was important to use the stone. It will have a medium sand finish to contrast with the highly textured and colored cantera stone. Staff recommended deleting Condition #1. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what material was to be used for the trash enclosure. Mr. Cross stated it would be painted to coordinate with the colors and would be made of metal. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the date palm trees as there are a great number of Phoenix Dactylferas and they are unique, but from a safety standpoint, the crowns will fall off which have caused injuries. He is not opposed as long as they are not in high traffic areas. If they are planted in a younger state they are better than the older ones removed from a grove. If they use them only in not highly traveled areas, he has no objection. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked Mr. Doczi if they were having any trouble getting the standard trunk tree to reach maturity without having structural problems. Trees such as Schinus Molle and Sumac, blow over or lose their shape. Mr. Doczi stated that on the date palms they want to use them for continuity along Washington Street similar to the other developments and introduced them at the entrance and along the perimeter. They did not plan to use them within the project. Schinus Molle would be used along the streetscape on Washington Street as well. They anticipate using the younger date palms, but it is becoming more and moire difficult to find them. Committee Member Bobbitt stated there was no problem using them, as long as they were planted where they would not fall on anyone. Mr. Doczi stated that in regard to the condition regarding 50% replacement, they have no problem with this and will revisit the hardscape plan to get vines on the columns. Rather than a canopy tree they would like to use an understory tree and alternate them with the palm trees. They did add trees at the southwest and northeast corner of the building, but since this was the main entry area, they felt there would be a pedestrian conflict adding the landscaping. They may use some at grade planters or pots to add to the landscaping. They will have berming at the corners to meet grade. There will be a wall to screen the parking, and they could add berming around the corner. Trees do allow the people passing by to see G:AW PDOCS\ALRC 11-1-OO.wpd 3 no Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1.2000 through. The trees will have full size islands to allow the roots to grow. Staff asked if the use of the annual color will be the same as the Palm Desert store with the "W". Mr. Doczi stated no, it will not be used. 9. Committee Member Reynolds thanked the applicant on his presentation. He has no problems with the proposal. 10. Committee Member Cunningham stated he would like to be sure the line -of -site is correct. Mr. Cross stated is a concern of theirs as well, and they will make sure it works. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the building is constructed and the equipment is seen, is there a condition to see that it is not visible. Planning Manager Christine di, lorio stated yes, a condition will be added. Mr. Cross asked if they would be able to add the extra two feet if they find it is needed. Staff stated it could be added to the Specific Plan as an option if there is a problem with the visibility at the time of construction. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-020 recommending approval of the landscaping plant pallette and building elevations for Specific Plan 2000-045 and Site Development Permit 2000-677, as amended. a. Condition #1: Deleted b. Condition #3c: Deleted. C. New condition: Requiring the mechanical equipment to be hidden from sight. Unanimously approved B. General Plan ,Amendment 2000-071 Zone Change 2000-096, Village Use Permit 2000-004 and Environmental Assessment 2000-402; a request of Chapman Golf Development, LLC for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for an 11,900 square foot restaurant to be located on the northeast corner of 52nd Avenue and Desert Club Drive. 1 . Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. O:\w PDocS\ALRC I I- 1-OO.wpd 4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1. 2000 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify what the grass area was to be used for. Staff stated it was for special theme functions. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is a great project and he would love to see more of this type. 4. Committee Members Bobbitt and Reynolds stated they had no problems with the project. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2000-021 recommending approval of building elevations and landscaping plans for General Plan Amendment 2000-071, Zone Change 2000-096, Village Use Permit 2000-004, and Environmental Assessment 2000-402 2000-045. Unanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2000-685; a request of Tait and Associates for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for a 3,984 square foot convenience store located on the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street within Point Happy Specific Plan. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker 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 about the location of the building. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it is right off the Highway 111 signal entrance. Staff has worked with the developer of the site to be consistent with the other buildings in the project. 3. Mr. Steve Frank, Tait and Associates, stated they have been working with staff to reach an agreement on the canopy design. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated this is an extremely sensitive site. The Cliffhouse Restaurant is located on the other side of the rock, which is gorgeous. The restaurant design is almost what they are looking for on the site. What needs to happen is for the architect to go over and look at the Cliffhouse and come real close to it architecturally. This is a nice looking gas G:AWPDOCS\ALRCI 1-I-OO.wpd 5 007 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November I, 2000 station, but this site is very important and in his opinion they have to go to the extremes to make it comparable with the Cliffhouse. He understands that it is a gas station and it needs to resemble that, but it needs to be on the scale of the Cliffhouse architecturally. 5. Committee Member Reynolds asked what other developments would be built on this site. Staff explained that the developer has stated there will two fast food restaurants as well as a major sit- down restaurant. Other specific uses are not known at this time. 6. Committee Member Reynolds, asked if the property was under two ownerships. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated Madison Development is now the owner of the entire site. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the grading plan has been approved and they are now working on the pad areas. There was a Specific Plan developed with design guidelines which outlined the elements that had to be followed. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated he would like to see the stone work used on the Cliffhouse utilized here. He would not condition it to be real stone, but a good veneer stone. The use of smooth stucco finish, open tails on the roof element on the high part of the building needs to be similar to the Cliffhouse, with raised mudded tile to warm it up. The canopy needs revision. Maybe a trellis type with beams closing off the center section, similar to the Rancho La Quinta guardhouse to soften up the trellis - gas bays. Planning Manager Christine di lorio clarified it would have a smooth trowel finish. Committee Member Cunningham reiterated how sensitive this corner is and how important the design is to this site. Staff stated that under the Specific Plan they are using a flat clay tile roof tile. As to the stone veneer the reference to the Coronado Virginia Light, the Specific Plan states the cantera stone with the Cafe Two could be used. Mr. Frank noted it the wording "like material', which in their opinion, this is. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with Committee Member Cunningham and this is the first proposal for the site. He does not believe the design is reflective of what is wanted on this corner. It needs to lend itself more to what the Cliffhouse looks like. 9. Committee Member Cunningham stated the Specific Plan is a guideline and it could be expanded upon. G:AWPD0CS\A1-RCI I-I-OO.wpd 6 -� Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 10. Committee Member Reynolds stated he hates to see Highway 1 1 1 being developed into a string of gas stations with fast foods. This corner is far more important. Some special treatment needs to be added to this site. He does not understand why so many gas stations are needed in the same area. 11. Committee Member Cunningham stated the proposal is getting there, but needs more work. They need to review the stone work. Wood is not a good material to use on the exterior; it needs a smooth stucco finish. The colors are not an issue. Curving is not right, it should be rectangular or square and the canopy needs to have a trellis look around the perimeter to soften it with knee braces or corbels, or some type of architectural treatment. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked what material should be used on the knee braces or corbels; was he referring to metal material? Discussion followed regarding possible suggestions. 12. Committee Member Cunningham stated he was not challenging the Specific Plan conditions. Staff stated the applicant is constrained by what is approved in the Specific Plan. Committee Member Cunningham asked that they at least use the Coronado instead of the Cantera stone. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-022 recommending approval of the building elevations and landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 2000-685, as suggested. Unanimously approved. a Canopy redesign as suggested with a trellis look using the beam element used on the building b. Smoothed trowel finish C. Use of Coronado "Virginia Ledge" stone D. Site Develop lent Permit 2000-665; a request of Steven Walker Homes for review of landscaping plans for model homes and common areas for Tract 29347 in Specific Plan 90-015 (Norman Course). 1. 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. Mr. Dan Beals, representing Steve Walker Homes, stated he is looking forward to the project and is available to answer any questions. G:\ W PDOCS\ALRC l I. 1-OO.wod 7 oos Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November 1, 2000 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the applicant to explain the landscaping. Mr. Beals stated the front yards will be typical, as shown. The rear yards will be as the property owner designs it, but all landscaping will be maintained by the homeowners' association. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the watering would be on a timer. Mr. Beals stated a master timer with common area water. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-023 recommending approval of the landscaping plans for Site Development Permit 2000-685, as recommended. Unanimously approved. E. Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-003; a request of Mary Hope Franco, La Quinta Video and Paging for a funding request to install new landscaping fence, and awning with illuminated sign for the property located at 78-040 Avenida La Fonda. 1. Management Analyst Britt Wilson 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 what the existing stucco was. Ms. Franco stated the owner wants to put in a bid to repaint. The canopy will change color to match the building color when selected by the owner of the building. 3. Committee Member Reynolds asked about the fencing on the perimeter. Staff stated it is an existing fence. The new fence will replace the street side fence. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the guidelines were for the front or entire building. Staff stated it is for external facade improvements. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the landscaping is only as good as it is maintained. Ms. Franco stated there is a gardener and flowers will be planted in the planters. Committee Member Bobbitt commented that one of the bids from one of the landscape contractors, is not legal as he is not licensed and should be removed. Staff reminded the Committee that a commitment is signed by the applicant to requirement them to maintain the site as part of the agreement to receive the money. G:AWI'DOCSVALRCII.1-OO.wpd 8 4 A.T, 010 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes November I, 2000 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-024 recommending approval of the funding for the building elevations and landscaping plans for Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-003, with a score of 72.5. Unanimously approved. F. Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-004; a request of Michael & Annie Fischer, Village Park Animal Hospital for a funding request to construct a block wall along the west property line for the property located at 77-895 Avenida Montezuma. 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 Reynolds asked if the block wall was on the west side only. Ms. Fischer stated it will be on the west and south side. Staff stated there is a wall and gate on the north side. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if it is block or slumpstone. Ms. Fischer stated they had not made that decision. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that it needs to match the existing building. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-025 recommending approval of the funding for a block wall for Commercial Property Improvement Program 2000-004, with a score of 83. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIL COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a regular meeting to be held on December 6, 2000. This meeting was adjourned at 1 1:46 a.m. on November 1, 2000. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California '..J.'j„ 011 11 .. -, , , ,.,.I n ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: DECEMBER 6, 2000 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-686 CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES BENJAMIN AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES APPROVAL OF TEN SINGLE FAMILY PROTOTYPE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 206 HOMES WEST 13IDE OF JEFFERSON STREET, BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND MILES AVENUE The property is located at the northeast corner of the City on 63.1 acres bounded on the east by Jefferson Street, the north by Fred Waring Drive, the south by Miles Avenue, and the west by the Cactus and Wildflower subdivisions (Attachment 1). The project site excludes a 551.7' by 789.48' ten acre area on the corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The tentative tract map creating the lots for these residences is presently being processed and is scheduled for City Council review on December 19, 2000. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing ten different floor plans, varying from 1,500 to 3,015 square feet of living area, excluding the garages (Attachment 2). The plans are "Spanish-Mediterrean" in nature and utilize 'S' or flat concrete tile roofing, metal sectional garage doors, plastered walls and wood or plastered trim. The roof colors vary from flashed grey, and shades of brown and red. The plaster colors range from beige to light tan, with trim (doors, window frames, fascia, etc.) varying from beige to grey -blue. Nine of the plans are one story high with the height varying from approximately 14 to 16.5 feet. The two story plan (Classic Plan 5L) is approximately 20.25 feet high. Seven of the plans provide three facades each with the other three having two each. Rear elevations will be the :same regardless of the facade, with sides only varying due to the use of different roof types. The plans use a variety of architectural features including plastered window and door surrounds, recessed windows divided P:\STAN\sdp 2000-686 alrc rpt.wpd � ; n windowpanes on the elevations facing the streets, wainscot treatment, towers, decorative vent treatments, etc. Eight of the ten plans have front loaded garages. Plan 2 of the "Heritage" series has a side entry two car garage and Plan 5 of the "Heritage" series has a side entry for a one car garage. The other two car garage for this plan is front facing. The five "Heritage" plans all use a main single height gable roof facing the rear of the unit. Various towers, hip and other gable roofs extend out from the front of the units. The five "Classic" plans also use a main gable roof, but vary the heights due to varying roof planes. Front yard landscaping plans have not yet been submitted. These plans are presently being prepared by a landscape architect. FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.210.01O (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. RESPONSE: The Zoning Code design guidelines for tract development require a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed "Classic" units comply with these requirements in that two or three facades per plan are proposed„ roof heights are varied with the combination of different roofs, and plaster surrounds are: provided. As noted in Condition #3, on Plan 5 of the "Heritage" series plaster surrounds are required by the design guidelines on the side elevations because those walls are flat. The five "Heritage" plans all use a main single height gable roof facing the rear of the unit. The design guidelines require that no more than one of each prototype plan have a continuous plane roof ridge facing the front or rear. Therefore, modifications to the roof for are required as noted in Condition #4. 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. non P:\STAN\sdp 2000-686 alrc rpt.wpd 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 development to the west 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 coveragie 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 landscaping plans have not yet been submitted and are required in Condition #5 to submit them for Architecture and Landscaping Review Commission (ALRC) approval prior to issuance of first building permit for a production unit. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2000- 686, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Detailed front yard landscaping plans and common areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Commission (ALRC) and Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permit for the first production unit 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. 3. On Plan 5 of the "Classic" series plaster surrounds shall be provided on the side elevations of the building, subject to Community Development Department approval. 4. The "Heritage" series plans shall be revised so that no more than one of each prototype plan have a continuous plane roof ridge facing the front or rear of the lot, subject to Community Development Department approval. 5. The landscaping plans have shall be submitted for ALRC approval prior to issuance of first building permit for a production unit. 003 P:\STAN\sdp 2000-686 alrc rpt.wpd Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits 0 1 "x1 4") Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: 01� Christine di lorio, Planning Manager 0() P:\STAN\sdp 2000-686 alrc rpt.wpd lz IBER'14JP L)A _ r• i� L_jD, E fw ` I rE FREQ WAKING1-. DR. jfqDjo 11 VG� _ z 50TN. v�i AVENUE _ a VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE CASIE MAP CASE No. SDP 2000-686 ORTH SCALE: CENTURY-CROVVELL COMMUNITIES NTS � ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2000 CASE NO.: N.A. APPLICANT: DAVID CETINA EL RANCHITO MEXICAN RESTAURANT REQUEST: FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE ESTADO (78-039 CALLE ESTADO) BACKGROUND: This item was considered by the ALRC on October 4, 2000 and October 18, 2000. At the October 18 meeting, the ALRC scored the application by Mr. Cetina, however, it did not garner sufficient points to achieve a passing score (i.e. 70%)• In accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP), the applicant was advised that he could redesign and resubmit his improvement plans to the ALRC. Subsequently, Mr. Cetina did redesign his project and resubmitted it to the City for consideration. Specifically, Mr. Cetina revised his original proposal to include two horizontal freestanding wood trellis patio covers separated by the entry door into the restaurant. Additionally, the westerly trellis, which previously mirrored the slope of the existing roof, was redesigned to be flat to match the easterly trellis. Finally, in place of the original design of plastered columns, the applicant is proposing wood posts mounted in slumpstone columns of the short wall enclosing the front patio. In recognition of the historical significance of the building and City codes, the redesign needed to be reviewed again by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). On November 9, 2000, the HF'C approved the redesign with the following conditions: 1. Accurate, scaled drawings of the proposed construction, with color and material samples shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The westerly trellis patio cover shall be horizontal. The two patio covers shall be connected with a single horizontal beam extending across the north end, adjacent to Calle Estado. A_'j 017 3. The westerly columns shall be moved easterly away from the edge of the building to match the distance between the edge of the building and the easterly columns. The HPC's recommendation (for a revision to the previous design and Certificate of Appropriateness) was considered and approved by the City Council at its November 21, 2000 meeting. The matter is now before the ALRC for additional consideration and scoring under the CPIP. A drawing of the revised plan is attached (Attachment 1). Additionally, the original application is attached (Attachment 2). The standard funding criteria worksheet is also attached (Attachment 3). The applicant has been made aware of this meeting and has indicated that he will be present at the December 6, 2000 ALRC meeting. Prepared by: _ 25k- k Britt W. Wilson, ManagemoA Analyst City Manager's Office Attachments: 1. Revised design drawing 2. Original CPIP application 3. Funding Criteria worksheet Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager Community Development Department G:\MyData\WPDocs\CPIP\CETINA-ELRANCHITO\ALRCSTAFFREPORTCETINA 12-05-OO.wpd 002 018 003 ATTACHMENT 1 3 � v o � 0 •r�rr� tt�t' r o�rr� �rrr�l 004 �.�.; n20 0 I� v a_ N tc � � u i a i t, d coo 00 a1 t �f 6 d� M c oo V cr C-0 - a I � � a f - -1)05 �- ► 021 ATTACHMENT 2 LM La Qulnta Redevelopment Agency Commercial Property Improvement Program Application Applicant Information Applicant Name: -bu c Applicant Phone: " /v q - 72647 Applicant EAtad: Name of Business: Mailing Address: 7$' l CJ Business Phone:4 V-uUL1 Busirness Fax: Property Owner. Yes: r No: Business Comer: Yes: 0-- No: Project Information O / P Business Loa79 tibon: 3--r C4 /I,r ZS • . ct o Type of Business: MO $4/4'm 411, Project Goals:'Zo •mOr,..Z ,/re 4'42Dc rs ,' ,.[• h c rc Proposed Improvements: 0, Total Project Cost (please attach cost estimate): Requested Agency Asststenca /SOOO Appfiam BudgetAmount LiVao Description of Applicant Funding Sources: Jq4titS S •rw !id Is Proposed Project Duration: Attachments • Two (2) color photographs of the property where improvem ms will be installed • Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level) • Cost estimates Certification Statements If the applicant is not the owner of Me subject property, the folbw'vg certification must be by the Property owner. h, declare under penalty and perjury that I am the owner of property involved in this application. I acknowledge that only one (1) tenant of the subject property involved in this application may be awarded program funding in any one (1) given fecal yew. Signature: Date: The following statement must be completed by the applicant and property owner. INre acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all above information is true and cot,er. to the best of mylour knowledge and belief. IAve understand that a Building Impm+enrem Rebate Agreement must be signed and audodzed by the La Ounta Redevelopment Agency prior to commencing any wok on thee JecL SgnaWre Date: 9-//-0c- SgnaWre: Date: 006 02c4, Sep-22-00 09s1 Southwest Design, Inc. 44*9 Town Center SulwD-45'pm 25 FBI 2 25 Pal ng0)674.8772 BCITY OF LA CLIhTA Fax(760)674-9742TY MA1 AGEF'S OFFICE CA Lie 0 767108 PROPOSAL TO: Ranchito Restaurant 0 David Cetina Lik Quints, CA Install r+w stamped concrate Supply #nd install wood patio cover Foam sod Stucco Columns perdv%" TOTAL $ 32.450.00 007 ,_�„ 028 Sep-08-00 04:21P P.O1 �1 N R 3 N v .> U p N F � w „ �n i'U�� D :Cia O U 0 d f r� r- ` <: � U u G ¢ a - O � 0 0 3 r Z 3 O 2 L U o a L 555 3 u e mm m 7 .E Q 000 OZY hitp://wwwz....a...ca.gov/iXpress/CSSLB—Library/CSLB+Book/License+Detail.DN4L 09/13/2000 umb*[ In P.O. Box 10758 Palm Desert, CA 92255-0758 at Ranchito Restaurant VO David Cetina La Quinta, Ca DESCRIPTION �74 g%3lev A�F DATE PROPOSAL # 09/07/2000 1020 cow 6 o6u4 L., c "r EoAr 10C -* 'D& G _A 11 /47�a/ TS?33-? 0, 8`11 f46 IF— A-X JOB ADDRESS �6'� Remove concrete patio and replace with stamped concrete including 20' saw cutting Supply and install wood patio cover including corbels, hardware, painting, and column footings Foam and Stucco columns per drawing Total ll`S,jYct—.C* v n I , ( C AMOUNT 12,400.00 12,000.00 3,840.00 $28,240.00 009 Contractors License Number #537335 Phone (760) 340-2726 • Fax (760) 568-2776 "'^''U 0Z j r5r9 Y o `. I, �21 ti 1 I 1 P I I I I � 1 I 026 ill 4 H f'ti/ �= 011. n2III I 1-i-f0 -NONEm. �. m �� srt�� ssts�. NA I T �I 1 1 ATTACHMENT 3 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. 50 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) ni4 ,,`� 030 ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: DECEMBER 6, 2000 N.A. CHARLES DUNN REAL ESTATE FOR LEROC PARTNERS PLAZA TAMPICO FUNDING REQUEST, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INSTALL IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING NORTH SIDE OF CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE 78-140 & 150 CALLE TAMPICO) The property managers for Plaza Tampico have submitted an application under the Commercial Property Improvement Program (CPIP) seeking funding for irrigation and landscaping of Plaza Tampico (Attachment 1)• Based on the original application, the applicant is proposing to "improve & expand irrigation system" at Plaza Tampico. Subsequent to the original filing of their application, staff met with the property managers and advised them that landscaping would have to be installed to help make their proposal more closely fit the program's aesthetic goals. Accordingly, the applicant revised their application to include landscaping. Based on the original application and the new landscaping costs, the applicant is seeking $15,000. In accordance with program rules, the applicant is responsible for a 10% match or $1,500. 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 appropriate City departments for identification of appropriate approvals/permits, 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 a representative(s) will be present at the December 6, 2000 ALRC meeting. t. ,. i 031 Prepared by: &4 Britt W. Wilson, Management Analyst City Manager's Office Attachments: 1. CPIP application: Plaza Tampico 2. Funding Criteria worksheet Submitted by: Christine di lorio, PI nning Manager Community Development Department G:\MyData\W PDocs\C PI P\PLAZATAM PICO-ALMOND-CHARLESDUNN\ALRCSTAFFREPO RTPLAZATAM PI CO 12-06-OO.wpd 003 033 �, .mac ii.ci rnn ooausoa UhAKLhn UUNN UU.-LAYM .. r... �....p.,....J CommercialProperty Improvement Program Applic6tion ATTACHMENT 1 ippiicant Information �WiantName: G 1200. '�2Tn1.2c; s C'//r7i'cE 5 u a kpplicant Phone: is i- y7� -3s i / - AppiiantE-Mail: 1YLFtc-�nr. fame of Business:.L2wi P icy 0i rjZ,- AaflingAddress: y, &IVJl 7= 5 DAr' Au 2Cge L-,—rh7t S�;_ 3�col:��Ati� �iuPii2e. �jcc,� fF�o� 3usiness Phone: _`i i 7G- -3 S%r Business fax: 1G 7G- 3_Si -2— c rat y, r u ��:�} ��74 y 'roperty Owner. 3usiness Owner. 'roject Information Yes: ✓ No: Yes: No: 3usiness Location: 7 Y -,/(0 7 `; - Type of Business: OL icy E� JC Project Goals: ... proposed Improvements: Total Project Cost (please attach cost estimate): Y1510, L1 7 7 0 0 2equestedAgency Assistance: /Q 977°" Applicant Budget Amount_V0,9712 description of Applicant Funding Sources: 'roposed Project Duration: - _3J ,� 5 attachments '00 SEP 11 APl 8 02 Two (2) color photographs of the property where improvements will be installed Project sketches or plans (based upon funding level) CITY 0, G !;,; Cost estimates :ertification Statements Ile the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, the following certification must be complet y the property owner: � n f declare under penalty and perjury that I am the owner IL roperty, involved in this appliaGon. I acknowledge that only one (1) tenant of the subject grope C3 volved in this application maybe awarded program funding in anyone (1) given fiscal year. gnature: Date: le following statement must be completed by the applicant and property owner we acknowledge the Ming of this application and certify that all above information is true and com the best of my/our knowledge and belief, ltwe understand that a Building Improvement Reb peement must be signed and authorized by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency rior mmengng any„work on g nature� 2 Date: 9- 8 car -- gnatu%� Date: _ 004 +_;„ 034 005 ij,o 035 007 037 08/29/2000 13:03 7603272425 PETERSON PACE 02 DICK HOURCHI LANDSCAMG P. O. BOX 13U CATMDRAL CITY, CA 9223s TLL M-324-M73 AUGUST 29, 2000 QORW Mab"Meea som" Aue: GBJerto Radr%pm P. O. Bea 32" Palo Spr6V4 CA 92263 1. ILLOGIC 2A9.00 2. VALVES 7,OKOO 3. SP1IMLER HEADS 1,000.00 TOTAL s 10,9rr.80 awbb 008 a.;lu 039 Desert Club Drive 111L�-�1LL�� LUlll1 rniTlijnTFTl'- E^ i 0 J � r r- ,� o t— t c fit -34 rr- N C+ J. i {o z N J. 7 J d J. 009 E FROM : QUALITY MAINTENANCE PHONE NO. : 6197787697 Oct. 27 2000 10:29AM P02 October 27.2000 QUALITY MAINTENANCE. SERVICE GARDENINGUANITORIAI.XrEAM CLF-AN/TRF.F. TRIM P. O. BOX 82" Palm Springs, CA 9220 Tel 760-322-9319- FAX 760-778-7697 FED ID NO. "9-80-8666 Wise Maintenance & Canstrudion Co. 53685 Eisenhower La Quints, CA 92250 Bill PROPOSAL TO REPLACE MUG.A QN B Fftt-4. L& QV1lYTA MEDICAL CENTER: 1. Replace irrigation values including sprinkler parts. 2. Replace all missing plants. 3. Replace all ;ground cover plants. 4. install a new irrigation tuner. TOTAL COST: $13,000.00 Gilberto Rodrigues �� Wise Maintenance/Construction Co. lelgil 00 Date Date ri7Y OF LA QUVNTA_ 010 Ir40 OOT-05-2000 01:15 PM H2O LRNDSCRPE LILLYMRN 7603422545 VZ0 AAA 82625 BOGART DRIVE INDIO, CA 92201 PHONE:760-775-0808 FAX:760-342-2545 stab contractors UCOMM 0 Teals PROPOSAL w Wise 10-00 toff uunDr Tn RF DPRFnRtutFn AT- •noeEfie PwaTampico wYrE Wise Mairdeiriance A Ca lea Co. � s 53566 Else *mw C17Y. srME La Qum MY. &YAW La Quints CA oAn: a MAM vhamc ra 771-1180 .etyasCT we la fwMsn the materials and Perform the labor the can of Plant and Tree ReplAcernsinit Option 1: 2 105-gallon Hibiscus 10 15gallon Hibiscus y3 Vines 'IS -gallon a Vines 3 1 Bottle Trees 3 1 Bartle Tress 1 Laurd F' Trees 11Laurel F Trees allon OIMKNN 39 1 on Oleander im S lon J Oleander' 0 1 oimxw 1 1 Laord Sumac 1 15-gallon Laurel Sumac 11 Carissa 11 Ion Carlssa 3 1 lea Evergreen Peer 3 16-gallon Evergreen Pear 1 24- box OM Tree 11 24' box Olive Tres lkgft Mediterranean Fan Palms 1 Ion Mediterranean Fan Palms 8 Lantarpr 8 lon Lanfane 5 flats annual Pj (lets annual color 50 ad R sod 50 all It sod tAtteriatlt alwr $CT42.00 Matedallt sbor $6.912.00 Price for replacement material does not include irrigation repair due to existing dodo unable to tunctlar manually. A veer clock needs to be installed prW to evatw4on or system. cic Rain Blyd Mc-32 Cioand Pedestal — MAWIsIlLabo►. s1.307.00 Makdonmes - $11acalpor Monts • includes minor irrigation repairs. trimming of bushes and trees, pick up trash and debris harling of landscape debris- • Does not include: annum color, palm tree trimming, or overseading sod. Valve replacement at addhional cost. All material is guaantaed to be as specfied, and the above work to be pertormed in accordance with the dravrirgs and speci0kakina submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmardike mamrer for the sum of TBD----.__.._-------.------------- Dollars I$ ) with payments to be made as Ulows: TBD AnrwrmrmaWhWfW.ennWmn wwa,gjrWo000 Respadfullywbmltlad mw.wb• dap aeonddlrM wet d,wY.aw9-tn•�oN OwMrwO YgOr•ww• m».w,.UW~..owww.>+r.r.epoww.mma NOW This may withdrawn by us if not eaceDted wet n The above prices, specifications and odndmrs are setistaa y and am hereby accepted. You are autiWiM to 00 the work as specified- Payments will be made as oudihed above. Date Oct-30-00 02:41P DESERTISLESLANDSCAPINGINC 760 345 1297 PW M'. 01 u1 01 peg" MW (780)345-356s FAX (760) 345.1297 - 40.260 GALINDO COURT ESERT ISLE Uc. No. 737763 BERMUDA DUNES, CA 92203 . aaoaosu sr9errEn To _—"—'— ndE OaTE Wise Maintenance and Construction Co. 760 771-1 80 October 0 2000 s ao 53 -685 Eisenhower Dr. Plaza Plaza Tampico Tampico�I - m". SlaTE acre no COME — mL uT La Quinta, CA 92253 aa[wnECT _..__ _ oaTE OF'P+YK r La Quints. CA 92253 .ale PrrV1E Fax S (760) 564-7412 I 1 Or f ropost he,60y to lurmah matenai and IeOMr - compNae in accordance .1h spe6alra0ora WOW for the awn of, 4 maaa aslpepra. AU meow ,e pwre,laeE +o a as fpaveaE /. wM a Ua w,nrrwaa in a wp41eYW'a manor acmbp n sww,a rtrnras any snenuan a a.a. Imn sgraraevna w- sgnai ` nrpM,q Wa VJb WI ae eaiVlae bYY Y[Q� ennan aelam. are wl CX/Yw ee- rM ua," Mr vW . ea Nlmla M Was CaIMVMe ,W� eM1avt. ep:i l ! a pwes aany w Myya ba, ! , cmtry Ow,a, o m hre Rama e . W Yw wGwabY wl m�a Yf ue it na rwppNd wTrlin 30 .__ days e o,r ,m mwouw a, r . en h+N arena oY Wu . Ce-.w iawav we hem" aptmeW da,.tpra ua.ww+.+a ro, Relandscaping Plaza Tampico East side only as indicated on plans. NOTE: Due to so many incomplete visible areas, we can only do this project on d time and material basis (Or re -do it aLl new). List Cost of Labor and Material are listed below: 1. Labor Cost @ $22.50 per/'hour 2. 5 Gallon Plants @ $12.50 per/plant 3. 1 Gallon Plants @ $9.00 per/plant 4. 24" Box Trees @ $205.00 each 5. Sod @ $.40 per/sq/ft. 6. Sprinkler System - Invoice plus 10% E�4111 OCT 3 1 20 �1? Arrrnt8llrt Of VrOPO68I- The aOve wKes, speclfica0ms +I y r 7; r� ana cW,dMns are sabslactwy aM an herby accepted YEu are authwlzM Sgnta% — " Ie -M ree ,work a %De,- M1ed Paymerl *0� he 'nacre as M lnerl aprM 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. _ 50 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. Scale 0-10 points x _ 25 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. 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. 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. 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) 011 f .- n43