Loading...
2008 09 03 ALRC4 XP 494kr6i ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall — Study Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2008-018 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. 111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approval of the Minutes of August 6, 2008. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ........................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-904 Applicant ................ T.D. Desert Development Location .................. East side of Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE September 3, 2008 Request .................. Review of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for Six New Prototypical Unit Types and A Sales Center For Construction in Andalusia. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 B. Item ........................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-903 Applicant ................ Talbert Development, Inc. Location .....................East of Washington Street and West of Caleo Bay Drive, Approximately 350 Feet North of Avenue 48 Request .................. Review of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for a 50,019 Square Foot Retail Center Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission Update 2. Council Joint Meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT This meeting of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 1, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee Regular Meeting of Wednesday, September 3, 2008, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Post Office, 78-630 Highway 111, on Friday, August 29, 2008. DATED: August 29, 2008 90 &�00-J CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California PAReports - ALRC\2008\9-3-08\Agenda.doc d,I101011:6i ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA August 6, 2008 10:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Jason Arnold, Ronald Fitzpatrick, and Ray Rooker. C. Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 2, 2008. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Final Landscaping Plans 2008-032 a request of Steve Olshan, Project Architect, for the review of final landscaping plans for the Plaza at Calle Tampico located at the northeast corner of Calls Tampico and Desert Club Drive. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick extolled the design, landscaping, and plans of the project and said he appreciated the applicant complying with the suggestions of the Committee. He especially appreciated the pedestrian -friendly design which included a water feature and an outside seating area. Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick asked if the project architect was from Santa Monica, California. Mr. Tom Cole replied that the architect had extensive retail experience, which was very beneficial due to the small size of the project and its constraints. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the exposure of the Shops 2 building to the direct afternoon sunlight and questioned the lack of trees and plants to provide shading. Mr. Cole explained the tenants for the building had not yet been identified and expressed the applicant's concern of landscaping that could block sign visibility and drive potential tenants away. However, once the future tenants were established landscaping could be installed to meet the tenants' needs. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about bike racks being provided. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen replied that bike racks were identified in two locations on the construction plans. Committee Member Fitzpatrick inquired about adjustments made to the outside seating area. Principal Planner Mogensen explained the applicant had adjusted the hardscape, around the central courtyard area, to accommodate an outdoor seating area for a grocery store and any potential restaurant tenant for Shops 1. He added the lighting for the project had been adjusted accordingly. Committee Member Fitzpatrick questioned the use of Star Jasmine as it thrived only in partially shaded areas. Principal Planner Mogensen replied the Star Jasmine would be placed on the north elevations in the shaded areas, for example along the wall on Springtime Way, which was almost always in shadow. In addition, the north elevation of Shops 2 had a vertical trellis on the pilasters with vines feasible for that type of shaded environment. 2 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 Committee Member Jason Arnold said he thought the plans were very nicely done. He wanted to comment on the use of Star Jasmine also, as the plant required a shaded area to thrive. He suggested substituting it with Calliandra (Pink Powder Puff) if there was inadequate shade for the Star Jasmine. He added the two plants looked almost identical and most people couldn't tell them apart. Mr. Tom Cole, Director of Construction for Highland Development Company, said he would mentiah,the Committee's suggestions to the applicant. Principal Planner Mogensen said he had previously discussed the use,of Star, Jasmine with the landscape architect and had confirmed that'it would only be placed on the north elevations of Shops 1 and 2, which would provide the necessary shading for the plant to thrive.. Committee Member Ray Rooker 'said he'viewed the intersection of Desert Club Drive and Calle Tampico as a major downtown area because of its -proximity to Old 'Town La Quinta and the token fountain across the street. Unfortunately, none of the projects had put any emphasis on developing the corners at the intersections and making them more appealing to visitors and pedestrians. In future projects, Committee Member Rooker would 'like to\ see a tendency' towards the architectural development of, the street , corners at major intersections in proximity to he projects tohighlight them. Planning Manager David Sawyer commented that an enhanced pedestrian environment at the corner of this project had been discussed \' by the ALRC and the Planning Commission. However, it was not included due to the traffic patterns and proximity to the area. Another factor was the orientation of the F.reshi& Easy grocery store would have also had to be adjusted Committee Member Ray Rooker expressed his dislike of the fact that there would be a grocery store on a corner lot. This would provide the view of the store wall on one side and the utility drive-in on the back, which would add a negative connotation with its truck traffic. He suggested a corner location would be much better utilized by small shops due to visibility and signage, as well as from an architectural standpoint as the shops would have a more festive appearance for the community. 3 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 Committee Member Ray Rooker pointed out that there were no trees shown on the street elevation at the fountain at Calle Tampico; however, the plans do show trees. Further, more trees were shown directly above the entry at Calle Tampico with no breaks. He suggested omitting a few of the palm trees to promote pedestrian access. Staff replied that the continuous palm trees along Calle Tampico were planned intentionally as the mid -block crossing was discouraged. In,addition, the trees would hide the power transformer from vievi., Staff has tried unsuccessfully to relocate the transformer Committee Member Rooker said he was disturbed by the lack of trees on the back of the building. He' said he realized the area was mostly shaded and did not require more ,\trees. He encouraged the applicant.from an aesthetic standpointlto place a few trees along side the plain, wall 'of the building, which would not pose a signage obstruction for the tenants. The applicant acknowledged Committee;, Member Rooker's comments and agreed some landscaping should be put in place along side the back wall! however, that would be done at a later time when the tenants were identified. Committee Member Rooker, asked about the lighting of the project as it was not indicated on the plans. Staff replied the lighting had already been, approved through a separate building permit as it was not a matter for the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee at this time to approve. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if shielded lighting was used. Staff replied all up -lighting had to be shielded and pointed towards a plant or a building. Planning Manager David Sawyer clarified the purpose of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee meeting in reviewing the Final Landscaping Plans was for the Committee to determine whether the plans were consistent with the already approved preliminary plans and conditions of approval. Despite the excellent comments made by the Committee Members, they would not be applicable at this development stage of the project, but rather at the preliminary review stage. If the 4 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 conditions of approval had left a door open for additional suggestions then the comments could have been incorporated; however, the Commission did not do that. Planning Manager David Sawyer said that during next month's meeting the Committee would be reviewing a couple of Site Development Permit applications which is the appropriate time for a thorough review of a project and recommendations to the applicant. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the Committee could make suggestions to the applicant which could later be enforced by the Planning Commission. Staff replied that the Final Landscaping Plans would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission again and the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee was the final approval the applicant needed to move forward with construction of the project. The Committee was to confirm the applicant had complied with the recommendations and conditions posed during the review and approval process. Planning Manager David Sawyer added that a common practice at this stage would be to have the plans approved by the Planning Director; however, the City of La Quinta had elected to have the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee to make a recommendation to the Director prior to his signature. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the bareness of the southern exposure and that something more should have been done to protect the wall from the high temperatures, besides only extending some of the trellises. Committee Member Rooker asked if a suggestion could be made to the applicant to modify the plans. Planning Manager David Sawyer explained that the recommendations would be noted in the minutes, and if there was a way, some minor adjustments might be incorporated through the Planning Director's approval. However, the Planning Director did not have the authority for anything more than that as the plans had already been approved by the Planning Commission and CVWD. The recommendations made by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, after reviewing the preliminary plans, had already been presented to the Planning Commission. At that stage the applicant could have either adjusted the plans and incorporated 5 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 the recommendations or could have waited to find out the decision of the Planning Commission as to if they would be made a condition of approval. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2008-016, recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2008-032. Unanimously approved. B. Final Landscaping Plans 2008-034 a request of RGA Landscape Architects, Inc. (Rob Parker) for Eisenhower Medical Center (Ali Tourkaman), for the review of final ,landscaping plans for the Eisenhower Ambulatory Care Center, located"at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Seeley Drive within the Centre Pointe project area. i Principal Planner Stan Sawa,v presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy, of which is on file in the Planning Department. Principal Planner Stan Sawa introduced the applicant's representative, Rob Parker with RGA Laridscape Architects, Inc. Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick thanked staff for providing, very detailed information on the project and the history of the building. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the project design was very well balanced. All of the major elements were equally balanced \ and the landscaping was abundant and lush. The plans showed large setbacks and big planters in the parking area taking away from the dominance of the asphalt. He liked the water feature on the site'and the landscaped island. He found the planting to be very- appropriate and in combination with the decorative paving' and the elegance of the buildings to achieve a much softer and inviting look. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the words "ambulatory care" meant that it was a walk-in clinic. Staff replied it was a walk-in clinic, but it also incorporated a lot of other services. Mr. Parker explained the clinic was a full -service, small scale hospital to service patients located in the south end of the valley. The clinic incorporated all services available at the main Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 hospital campus in Rancho Mirage with the exception of surgical facilities which would be part of the future extension phase. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant had held community meetings and obtained community feedback. Mr. Parker replied several community meetings were held at the beginning stages of the project and many factors were taken into consideration in the design of the plans.,, Mr. Parker pointed out that the majority of the parking spaces were covered and that the final plans presented to the Committee had been highly upgraded from the originally submitted pans regarding the number and size of plants in the project. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the high elevation on Washington ,Street. Mr.. Parker replied, that was one of the biggest challenges with the project. However, retaining walls along the channel on that side were engineered in conjunction with CVWD to accommodate the slope. Committee Member Fitzpatrick questioned the water source for the water feature. Mr. Parker replied the water feature would be supplied by water pumped through a recycling system. Committee Member Ray Rooker asked about the lighting of the parking lot as it was not included in the plans. Mr. Parker explained the plans included the landscaping lighting fixtures only. The majority of the parking lot lighting was up underneath the canopies, covering the parking stalls, which consisted of shielded lights. Committee Member Ray Rooker commented on the lack of outside seating areas for staff and patients. Mr. Parker said the original plans had a connection between the water feature and the center island as a designated outside seating area, but the applicant decided that was not the attention intended for the center section. Mr. Parker mentioned there was a large area in the front of the building with planters, which would serve as an outside area for patients. Also, on the southeast corner of the building there was an outside patio. The entire campus was designated as non-smoking applicable to staff, patients, and visitors. In addition, on the third floor, there was a large terrace for the needs of physicians and employees. Further, Mr. Parker VA Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 said that more outside areas might develop in the future as the additional usage of the building evolved and the project expanded and there was sufficient ground surface to accommodate future seating areas. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said the plans indicated the project was beautifully landscaped even though it was not very user-friendly. He asked if any plants could be incorporated into the semi -circle area at the entry way. Mr. Parker replied that issue was addressed with the applicant. The architect decided not to use flowers in that area due to safety and other issues. Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant would have any exhaust issues from Applebee's. Mr. Parker replied there were no exhaust issues. Committee Member Jason Arnold commented on the nice and detailed execution of the plans which made them very easy to read. He was pleased with the number of trees being planted, over 200, and the size of them. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members -Rooker/Fitzpatrick to adopt Minute Motion,2008-617, recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans 2008-034. Unanimously, approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE"AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Attendance Update: Planning Manager, David Sawyer mentioned that the attendance update was attached and staff would like to include it quarterly instead of monthly. The Committee did not have any objections. VII. COMMITTEE/MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: Planning Commission Update: Planning Manager David Sawyer said the Madison Square project located at the northeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Dune Palms Road was reviewed by the Planning Commission and it underwent an 8 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 extensive discussion. The project was approved and it included the majority of the ALRC recommendations, such as the sidewalks along Dune Palms Road conditioned to be moved away from the curb due to the project's proximity to La Quinta High School and the potential school traffic. Currently staff is coordinating efforts with the City of Indio, as well as other local communities, with regards to a potential recreational trail along the Whitewater wash. Due to the proximity of the project to the wash, the Planning Commission asked for an 'access pedestrian link to be placed from the interior of the project,, between buildings 2 and 3, to the recreational trail. Planning Commission asked for Palo Verde and Mesquite for the shade tree pattern, and additional screening was required on the north side of the building along the side of the -.wash.` It was clarified'"that the berms had to be three feet high measured frorm.the top of the curb on the parking lot side. There was a concern regarding the overflow queue of cars that would come out of In -&-Out Burger, therefore, the applicant was asked to extend out the berming along Highway 111, the length of the frontage. The proposed turf along the curb side was removed because it was there only for aesthetics and it served no other recreational purpose. However, the applicant was given the option to install some good quality artificial turf. Planning Commission asked that the approval of the Final Landscaping Plans for this project be presented back to PC instead of the Planning Director due to the numerous adjustments imposed on the applicant. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there were any comments on the bollard lighting along Highway 1 1 1. Planning Manager Sawyer replied there' vvas a general discussion, but no adjustments were enforced. Committee Member Rooker asked if the Committee is to understand that the use of turf for commercial developments was not recommended. Planning Manager Sawyer replied the Planning Commission's position is turf should have a dual purpose such as recreational use for visitors and patrons of a development, in addition to aesthetics. There is a tendency to avoid the use of turf merely for aesthetics. u Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes August 6, 2008 Committee Member Arnold said the use of the Mesquite and Palo Verde trees was not very popular due to the tendency of these types of trees to fall over and break. However, he explained that this was a problem only when single -trunk trees were used. The Mesquite and Palo Verde multi -trunk trees would not be so fragile and there was not an increase in cost in obtaining them. Planning Manager Sawyer asked if there were certain types of Mesquites that were more prone to grow as multi -trunk. Committee Member Arnold replied that there was no tendency amongst the trees, it all depended on how the tree was grown in the nursery. Planning Manager Sawyer said he would look into the procedure rules and find out if the Committee needed to appoint a Chairman and if so the elections would be included in the next meeting's agenda. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Rooker to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 3, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 11:03 a.m. on August 6, 2008. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA Secretary 10 rwo=%� �•' ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-903 APPLICANT: TALBERT DEVELOPMENT INC. ARCHITECT: PERKOWITZ AND RUTH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: MICHAEL BUCCHINO ASSOCIATES ENGINEER: ESSI ENGINEERING REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A 50,019 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER LOCATION: EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AND WEST OF CALEO BAY DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 48 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of a Site Development Permit is to provide specific design review of a project's proposed architecture and landscaping. The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee's (ALRC) role in reviewing this type of application is to provide the Planning Commission with a recommendation regarding the design of the proposed project and its compliance with the City's various development regulations. When reviewing applications, the ALRC is responsible for reviewing architectural design, site design, and landscape design. Architectural items for review include, building mass, scale, architectural style, and aesthetic details, including materials, roof style, and colors. Site related items include exterior lighting fixtures, project entries, streetscape, water features, pedestrian circulation, and similar amenities. Landscape review includes plant types, plant location and size, landscape screening of equipment and undesirable views, and the emphasis of prominent design features. Such coordinated review is necessary to promote a unifying project 1 design, compatibility with other surrounding uses, and aesthetic consistency with existing architecture and the level of quality prevalent in the community. Once reviewed, the ALRC's recommendation will be included in the staff report presented to the Planning Commission. To assist the ALRC in this review, the following background and analysis is provided. BACKGROUND: The 4.7 acre site is located between Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive, approximately 350 feet north of Avenue 48 (Attachment 1). To the south of the site are an existing Walgreens and a small commercial center containing offices and retail shops. Immediately north of the site is a vacant parcel, with the La Quinta Medical Center located just beyond. Lake La Quinta, a private gated residential neighborhood, is located to the east of the site across Caleo Bay Drive. A secondary entrance gate to Lake La Quinta will align with a driveway for the proposed project at Caleo Bay Drive. A residential tract approved for construction is located to the west across Washington Street. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project site will come from both Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive. The project will also share an internal driveway with the adjacent Walgreens site and share internal access with any future development on the vacant parcel to the north. The perimeter landscaping and a small retention basin along Washington Street are maintained by an existing property owners association, adjacent to where a Sunline bus stop for Line 70 currently exists. The project site was originally subdivided as one of three commercial parcels associated with the Lake La Quinta development in 1989 under Tract 24230. In April of 2002, the Planning Commission approved a three story, 120 room hotel on this site. The property was again subdivided under Parcel Map 27892 in January of 2004, an action which created a 20 foot landscaping parcel along Washington Street. The hotel was never constructed and the associated Site Development Permit expired in 2004. PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant has submitted Site Development Permit 2008-903, requesting approval of architecture and landscaping plans for a 50,019 square foot retail shopping center consisting of four buildings located on a 4.7 acre site. The applicant has also submitted an application for Tentative Parcel Map 35559, to subdivide the 4.7 acre site into four commercial parcels. The applicants have indicated that they are seeking a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council for the project. The project is located within the Community Commercial zoning district. `A Architectural Design, Mass, and Scale The four proposed buildings consist of an eclectic combination of architectural styles which utilize a desert color palate having different shades of tan, brown, and grey colors, and incorporate a combination of building materials, including stucco, stamped concrete, and brick. The project site plan orients the four buildings towards the interior (Attachment 2, Sheet SA1.0), with vehicular access from Washington Street, Caleo Bay Road, and the existing Walgreens located to the south. The height of each building varies from 22 feet to 35 feet, with the exception of Building "D" which has a proposed 40 foot clock tower with an 8 foot spire. Building "A," having 10,690 square feet, is located on the northwest portion of the site and will have the greatest visibility from Washington Street. Building "B," the smallest of the four at 7,050 square feet, is situated on the northeast portion of the site. Building "C" is 11,540 square feet and is situated to the southeast, with the rear of the building facing the existing Walgreens. Building "D" is the largest of the four at 20,740 square feet, and is situated at the southeast corner of the project site. All four buildings may be internally divided into multiple tenant spaces. The applicants have not identified any tenants to occupy the retail center at this time. The proposed architecture utilizes different colors, materials, and design features to provide an impression of greater depth (Attachment 2, Sheet A3.0-A3.3). The roofline consists of a varied parapet with a decorative linear cornice surrounding what is a generally a flat -roofed building. Portions of the structure are broken up by raised tower entry sections topped with two-piece clay tile roofing. The buildings' fagade consists of decorative stucco and brick sections which are varied through the use of arches, decorative pilasters, and raised tower sections. Building fagade pop -out and pilaster depth ranges from about one to three feet. Inset archways are proposed to contain vertical trellises. The use of horizontal canopies and shade trellises provide solar protection to storefronts and provide some additional depth to the building elevations. Landscaping Streetscape and Lighting The applicant has submitted landscaping plans that identify cooling water -features, shade trees planted within pedestrian areas, flower pots and planters, and a water - efficient plant palate. The proposed tree palate includes Tipu Trees, Shoestring Acacias, Camphor Trees, Crape Myrtle Trees, and California Fan Palms. Tipu Trees are proposed to provide the majority of shade within the parking areas, with Camphor Trees and Acacias planted along the north and south perimeter. The shrub and vine plant palate includes a variety of water -efficient and desert -appropriate species. Calliandra (Pink Powder Puff) and Bigonia have been identified for planting on the vertical trellises within the archways along the building elevations. Perimeter landscaping along Washington Street, consisting of the Date Palms and turf, will 3 continue to remain in place as is. Along Caleo Bay Drive, parking is proposed to be screened with Rose bushes and Xylosma, with shrubs between one and a half to three and a half feet in height. The project's proposed pedestrian circulation design identifies two improved pedestrian paths on each side of the existing bus stop located along Washington Street and, due to a grade difference, steps and a ramp leading to the existing sidewalk and intersection along Caleo Bay Drive. The applicants have also identified the potential placement of street furniture and the use of a permeable surface with interlocking pavers within the central parking area. The applicants have identified proposed lighting fixtures, photometric plans, and bulb types with their application (Attachment 2, Sheet E1.0, Exhibit D). Sidewalks will be illuminated from bollards and lantern -type fixtures proposed to be installed on the buildings. The interior parking area will contain freestanding lantern -type fixtures, while the outer parking area will be illuminated by freestanding shoebox- type fixtures. No height has been identified on the plans for either type of freestanding lighting fixtures. ANALYSIS: The proposed contemporary architectural style is essentially consistent with surrounding retail projects such as Washington Park and the recently constructed adjacent retail center at the corner of Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay Drive. Although the proposed center will consist of single story buildings, the height and massing of the buildings, generally ranging from 22 to 35 feet, are closer to that of two-story structures. Although the applicant has informed staff that they have met with representatives of the adjacent Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta neighborhoods regarding the proposed project, they have not provided staff with any record of their meetings. The height, massing, and scale of the buildings may still be of concern to the adjacent residents. The applicant has prepared a basic sight -line study to identify the perceived height of the buildings from adjacent residences along Caleo Bay Drive. Washington Street is a designated Major Arterial within the General Plan and has a 22 foot height restriction for any structure within 150 feet of its right-of-way. The architect has designed the general roofline of buildings "A" and "C" to be 22 feet in height within this height -restricted area, but has included architectural projections and tower entry features that extend up to 26 feet. Buildings "B" and "D" are not affected by this 22 foot height limitation, as they are farther than 150 feet from Washington Street. The Community Commercial zoning district permits structures up to 40 feet in height and permits architectural projections up to 15 feet in height. The proposed M 40 foot clock tower feature on Building "D" meets this height limitation, and the proposed 8 foot spire located on top of the tower is within the permitted architectural projection height. The applicants have not indicated if the building will have a future cellular antenna, which would need to be approved under a Conditional Use Permit and required to be fully screened and incorporated into the building's architecture. One of the concerns with the proposed elevations regards the depth of the architecture. Many box -retail structures incorporate pop -out features, pilasters, varied parapets, vertical trellises, contrasting colors, and archways to provide a sense of depth or relief to linear or flat building elevations. The concern was that the architectural features, which generally range in depth from one to three feet, may not be adequate to offset a flat or linear appearance. The north elevation of Building "A" will have the greatest visibility from southbound Washington Street and is the area of greatest concern. Staff suggests the Committee members consider the applicant's proposed building elevations and determine if additional depth or detail is necessary. Another concern of the project involves solar exposure. The proposed buildings will contain high ceilings with large glass entries, elevating their level of solar exposure. Although the applicants have installed trellises and canopies above store entrances and proposed using more mature trees for shading, it is suggested that the Committee members should consider the solar exposure of along the south face of Buildings "A" and "B" and shade coverage provided for outdoor pedestrian space. The applicants have submitted a standard application submittal package containing an 1 1 " x 17" booklet with color exhibits of the building plans and landscaping (Attachment 2), large format black and white elevations of the proposed building plans (Attachment 3), and a materials board which will be provided to the ALRC during the hearing. Certain aspects of the proposed project are difficult to discern from the plans, such as the depth and relief of the building elevations. Although recommended by staff, large scale color plans have not been submitted by the applicant. The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee may consider providing the applicant with any recommendations they may have for improving or clarifying the application submittal items prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Landscaping and Pedestrian Uses The project's renderings and landscaping plans highlight the project's use of outdoor pedestrian spaces for potential outdoor dining and activities. The sidewalk width between the parking lot and the buildings, and the buildings themselves, is only 10 feet, which would prevent the applicant from effectively utilizing the majority of these spaces for outdoor dining or similar activities as proposed. The applicant has not identified any permanent bench seating or bicycle parking areas on the 5 submitted plans. Retail centers are required under the Parking Ordinance to provide five securable bicycle parking spaces for each tenant having over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area, located in shaded locations and out of the way of pedestrian flows. Because the center may not have a single retail tenant with over 20,000 square feet, staff recommends a condition of approval to require bicycle parking. The proposed conceptual landscaping plans are a desert -appropriate design and identify larger tree sizes than comparable commercial projects. The landscape architect has proposed utilizing 60 inch box size Tipu Trees for shading high -traffic pedestrian areas at the center of the project. Tipu Trees are also proposed around the parking lot to meet the shading requirements. Portions of the proposed buildings will be shaded by vertical trellises planted with calliandra (Pink Powder Puff) and bignonia venusta (Flame) vines. The applicant has proposed screening parking from perimeter streets and the adjacent neighborhood through the use of landscaping. Because the property is elevated a few feet higher than the adjacent streets and residences, there is concern with screening the parking areas, as submitted. The proposed rose and xylosma bushes may not be able to provide adequate screening of vehicles (Attachment 2, Sheet L1.1). The ALRC members are suggested to consider alternatives such as a 3 foot wall, a berm, or different plant species for screening parking. All landscaping will be inspected by staff for screening conformance following planting. Perimeter landscaping already in place along Washington Street will remain as -is, primarily consisting of turf areas with some Date Palm trees. This perimeter area is within the existing 20 foot landscaping parcel maintained by the property owner's association. Outdoor Lighting The applicants have submitted a proposed outdoor lighting plan which includes photometric plans and cut sheets of lighting fixtures. Light fixtures attached to the building are proposed to be of a more traditional design which compliments the architecture. No height limits have been identified for the freestanding lighting fixtures within the parking lot. Due to the proximity of adjacent residential uses and the elevated building parcel, it is recommended that all freestanding lighting fixtures be focused within the property, fitted with a visor or bulb refractor if deemed necessary, and not exceed 20 feet in height. Staff also recommends that all freestanding lighting be either turned off or dimmed to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour after closing. Summary The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee should consider the architect's proposed building massing, height, and depth of elevations, the proposed 3 methods and locations of shading and screening, and the project's overall compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Because the project has a greater level of visibility with dual street frontages on Washington Street and Caleo Bay Drive, is on a parcel elevated a few feet higher than the adjacent properties, and is located adjacent to a residential area, some adjustments to the project's design could improve or resolve issues of screening, massing, and compatibility. RECOMMENDATION: That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend approval of Site Development Permit 2008-903 to the Planning Commission, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. All parking areas shall be screened from view through the means of a landscaped berm, a three foot high decorative masonry wall, landscaped hedges or bushes with significant foliage, or a combination of all three methods. All screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 2. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height, shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff, and be turned off or reduced to a level deemed appropriate by the Planning Director within one hour following store closing hours. 3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 4. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with these units. 7 NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 5. The applicant shall revise the plans for the Planning Commission to identify a minimum of five securable bicycle parking spaces and any fixed pedestrian seating, such as benches or tables. 6. All signs identified on the submitted plans shall be approved under a separate sign program application. Prepared by: An ew J. Mogensen Pr ncipal Planner Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Proposal Booklet* 3. Large -format Plans *The original materials board will be presented to the Commissioners during the hearing. A color copy of the materials board is located in Attachment 2 on Sheet MB. 0 ATTACHMENT L�` I Rep_Hewk in - VI p a P l;Vwta• 4���� � � W�\SDI � i •ne�l � �� 55' g \ tselnna'�er Dr�l o. Eisanhavrer Or Or Vicinity Map, Shoppes at La Quinta t N 1N � I I Corporate Cmire Ord s 4� �:J 'I � Via Tneste 3 g aeahTrall Ell _ Avenue 48 NG� Avenue 4_e ��Vds�hC�'d Iq 16Q�h \, O �1 / 3 N /l - c_/ (Rancho / Croy me„p _ce¶eel'(, (Cra"0'ugnn iv- | ; � _.�._!!_�§!._ j / §;Fh \'wm ; 2)(,,= >> ® §/ /o//0 || :|•\) §§;§ § ( §.... //W. (= = z) I| < ) �\ : §\|)§m|§\ r |\\` !;:2) m ( | /] ` )` \ / 0 /K ( 9)R r ERT DEVELOPMENT,« q� ^ , a&w . Californial"91501 -- 1 x' ksi 5 t-! m I "frfnnl, +! V l , O y � �D s ;D I `w "v NO 8� 8 TALBERT DEVELOPMENT, INC • cn F SXppPES °F a O1NMP 1719 RUDELL ROAD Rs g LA Quinfa BURBANK CA 91501 S g California SoNm#apm taaLwmEwmms �! P ma G!| _ LINE _a LA ®� , IM3 41P G � F ed y,R " wow` ;;,� eg+i• ,n�Y�✓ !a �� 4 �a I. .� 3 �� r � 'q w S e F -y' S p o a A � a � c a 4,•Y Fti C R- emu. �.um 1 a —ti j I � a I m•*�—` j TO n isF F3{i66p� s O Ilk Na \t w v ��C, § \U r mDEVE \| ' -:- °� 4�� a&m California ` •2 7ni | � ! §! \ \ , r m DEVELOPMENT, « 1 \ \ � ' {y| »&w m . ` California � } m }( z ,] §; ! \/ ����, r mD » ;E }|\ a&m° . , :� California !•|( - �)�} � } ., /{ \�� r nDEVELOPMENT, INC OURBAWCA ®, \y|o\9 m A tip �z t�i� %eg ""`"""" TE 6XCVPE6 C£ IA tlMMP Q TALBERT DEVELOPMENT, INC 1119 RWELL ROAD Iff @@pj 811 � P �F p tltlOa S CA 91501 s rnlag California Ca BURBANK t 6Jm ©!/! #a2aa-55 m b § 9R;%®&\x2 ; ©asp;>»©,` - a23«!! §\/\ \q> \%~©[ \� 9 @ ! ` ) •f , G(� _ ' >, ,�� , mDEVELOPMENT, E /|\ : ! LAo , 3) \ ' Californial . , . 4IP% vt C9 ID /-mf,fl`ifllln]IIfiIIII��_i l ���y m m { T z z s ' `�" ME fiXWM'W 'CFIA A TALBERT DEVELOPMENT, INC it • g ' a LA Quinta T/19 RUDELL ROAD gyp ' R i use s ' California BURBANK CA 91591 z O 41� I m < s Z e i "` `, I DEVELOPMENT, INC £ f pa € r OFPEE of w ouwrA v TALBERT 1719 RUDELL ROAD . s �o T� ;gig LA Quinta $ s California BURBANK CA 91501 off �gg r"_�'�" TALBERT DEVELOPMENT, INC ' • O' a �+ € i Ea WES w u00x LA Quinta 1719 RUDELL ROAD xs 4 s $ � o � � s California BURBANK CA 91591 ) k § it :| `v | ' S .- IL&BBEIoVEEOLPEm# 7 # \ ! ")I . \n� ®R®R J . ()� ctia _«>m Lm 1 1 ! � .e 'a Li a o s n� as � o�ow3 Fy �P��Oy��cB oy �o�s9��N `8�'^y'�3ooa 3 hoc. ilo � xm�3ol �nmmR a Ego `y am a`�ya 9 R[nv+ E x 8i9 4 94 m T H o N m n< e do m3 sm 3— - 3= �3 33 = <a-s < _ Fo 00 000mo 000an e 83ox `b'ie3o 09 exa;�n3n9�yo i "`i'$�w�o i m'v� - on6 �30�6 _a�moHa6 ac' mom„ N3� �d n a$ do 3 c+c �ITvma y..nxti !!Z ooco=o c �(M�)�M�& o ======e=000==ao ® =occ2ooe - ;__„ ! �§2k�§�\ MINNIN 71 v � � 9 � o N m ON 6 O O a�w aa� oa r n m ti� v n a m moo Fwo Om❑ o.�Foo avom� o_3 ym (pn - d�� md0 3 o o- _ (/� D N - a 0 m F v3 0 3io m 3 o 3_ o o^ o m p O n N O N i J T N N S N tioNn-oD❑ 13 o z i 3 a9�3v p N O m O m z O m K m m Z O O w �a�D❑ o ��g oN " y v E3 Q v D T O p . 3 n mC o 3 n p� m�o w m o y 0 n a ❑ O N N , :E o_ 9 0 ti 3 r Q ti A - NO 0 3 ( c 3 m N N � C � a C o = 3 aN D � N N ❑ ❑ N_ N c v v 3 DM8N 0 N A r� is Q Q S 3 _ y m 3 m O N o n � o �'o N Nm 3s 3m l �/�p a 3' m 3u N �u 3� 33 a3 m O So61 cmiD03 � 3ma 0 »m j, o w nc s� 00 3 a 3 am 03 ¢0m ,-p 0p .-oQa T (-- j 3 o0' om m *. a Q r Ica S m nn sm" D�a�mca Qin33 0 0 3 o m m ryry 3 c m m m n c 3 3 �. . o Q sf m � . $N � N 9 m � O d Q m N m 3 m hh N 3 � m rn y 51 O o 0. j F F T r m a-o 51 Z c 3 n 3t an d a H m� 2 0 �'Q' � m oo � Z o 4 f y 3 5- m n mm m K. SSK.Z a��mN 3o W, m'-' -m O m3m o`m vJ.<mp m ny a OR 0. mmcin om �'i .mSm y °'p3mmn C. -) J. m S = o o D in a S n v. vi J' Ci vmi m T u"i rmi. J N O S F T <nmA ysamz� �3mnr $a3c rym m F ¢mm.0 m<°`o ¢R m dm 0 F f0 555.(n J F "O N m N. ^ m N - S 4mi Q^ N 3 m p m s o m 0 m oo m `� S S i a J o ¢' ; -o m c n 3 o'c i J �' m m - mm 9 0o m ¢m0 - 'm 0; m �c 0 c o� 3.m-o nw.0 � J^m``� mcmi m o.=2 � F32-oJ ;S mmz o ayg 3°i ¢m 30 m -12 ms-50 Tnc .y m OHJ m S o� ¢ m mm to mr c m J 0 m n `�^ o m y a m y 3 m m o F a a m.m c N ^ m o F 2 a_m 'Ls' N m �,m O m m m o 3'm o o Q m 0 o m B a y m S o .3 p.3 m 'o m a d m y 1 w m rig ¢ a '^ y m .Z 3¢ m -� Gl �' p1 o m Z m -o oc °'n aov o og'>'oc o O ��a 3'$o O O' y m m m t Z Dv o m �rn�`mm 2oi G1m¢3 a O- m L�oN o g "' .¢ n o cvT B-o d D 'm' �. T S P m o a'FCL .m o N o Oo �o�om f ampmamoo?^m o�mm y��s w39a mQ�� n 0 �C 7' c F.5 .,.2 m a¢ m 0 `°�mm3 mo m y m'? c a,o mn =� .» m O o f m �" - o S B¢ o d m 4 0 0 3 3 0 5 m' 3 m o � �� a c a c y m. ¢ m m m� ^gy m a. o a ¢ t° m � c m � m 3 � D � H O- 3- a 3 � <° �� o o m cn 300 cog _.� mm� a3'm� ¢m3 rn�� m o _ o 3 m m`m = m o w m N y 3 0, J N m -� D m d 3 Oa -ate DB-1 o a N-o m - J = a p BI # A 0 Ua�w CE'� OF T9 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2008-904 APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRANDELL, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR SIX NEW PROTOTYPICAL UNIT TYPES AND A SALES CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ANDALUSIA LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 58 AND AVENUE 60 PURPOSE OF REVIEW The role of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) in reviewing site development permit applications is to provide the Planning Commission with a recommendation regarding the design of the proposed project and its compliance with the City's various development regulations. When reviewing applications, the ALRC is responsible for reviewing site, architectural, and landscaping design. Site design related items include exterior lighting, project circulation, and pedestrian access and amenities. Architectural items subject to review include building mass/scale, architectural style, and building details (materials, roof style, colors, etc.). Landscape review includes plant type, location and size, screening of equipment and undesirable views, and an emphasis on prominent design features. Such coordinated review is necessary to promote a unifying project design, compatibility with other surrounding uses, and consistency with the concepts expressed in the Specific Plan, La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Code. Once reviewed, the ALRC's recommendation will be included in a staff report presented to the Planning Commission. To assist the ALRC in this review, the following project information and analysis are provided. 1 P:\reports-a1rc\2008\9-3-08\sdp 2008-904 td desert (Andalusia).doc BACKGROUND The proposed units are to be constructed in the Andalusia at Coral Mountain project which is approximately 934 acres in size and allows a maximum of 1400 residences, two commercial lots and two 18-hole golf courses under Specific Plan 2003-067, approved in November, 2003. The Andalusia project encompasses property on both sides of Madison Street, eastward to Monroe Street, roughly between Avenues 58 on the north and 60 on the south (Attachment 1). The specific plan states the architectural theme of residential construction is to be compatible with a Spanish Colonial character, but not limit expressions of varying architectural styles. The specific plan also states landscaping is to create a lush desert character of visual variety and textural interest while complying with water conserving techniques based on plant selection and technical irrigation system design. To date, seven prototypical house and landscaping plans have been previously approved for construction in the project as a part of SDP 2003-787 (Attachment 3). Those plans vary in size from 2,760 to 5,083 square feet and consist of three Plan One, two Plan Twos, and two Plan Three designs. The original plans are "old world" Spanish in design and utilize smooth plaster, S-shaped concrete roof tile, cedar garage doors, wrought iron hardware and accents, brick veneer or ceramic tile detailing and recessed windows. Construction on property on the east side of Madison Street has begun with the first golf course, related facilities, and approximately 135 homes completed in the northern portion of the project site. This area is made up of Tract Map 31681 (consisting of four phases) which was approved in July 2004 for 548 acres and permits 472 single family lots, an 80 unit casitas complex, a commercial lot, and 18-hole golf course. The existing homes have been built .in Phasel, Phase 2 and part of Phase 3 (Attachment 2). The applicant states that it is likely that most of the balance of Phase 3 and all of Phase 4 will be developed with these new units. A small number of the existing plans may be built in the future, possibly on Lots 11-20 of Phase 3. The existing model complex will be closed with the sales office converted to a residence. The specific plan project area west of Madison Street is vacant with no tract map yet approved for it. PROJECT REQUEST Overview: The applicant is now proposing six new plans (identified as Plans 11-16) for construction in the project. The plans also include a 5,698 square foot sales center that would be constructed adjacent to the model complex area. PAreports-alrc\2008\9-3-08\sdp 2008-904 td desert (Andalusia).doc Architecture: The proposed new plans (Attachment 4) vary from 3,128 (Plan 11 without optional partial second floor) to 5,256 square feet (Plan 16). Plans 1 1-13 have a partial second floor as an option over the garage area. This second floor option is a new feature not provided in the original units. However, some of the original plans had high towers or areas with windows at a second story level that mimic a second floor. All plans have three garage spaces (one space golf cart sized) and up to 4.5 bathes. The number of bedrooms varies with Plan 12.having three bedrooms, and Plans 15 and 16 having the most with four bedrooms and a guest suite. Each plan is provided with three different facades. The architecture of the proposed units continues the Spanish colonial theme of the project. Residences will use smooth plaster, random boosted S-shaped concrete roof tile, wood cedar garage doors, wrought iron hardware and accents including custom iron gates, Ann Sacks custom tile in 26 different tile patterns in two color waves for a total of 50 different tiles for use around windows, doors, archways, column bases and front facing 1'-2' recessed windows. Homes utilizing brick accents will have an over -grouting technique applied to give it an old-world feel. Some windows and archways and all low walls will also be trimmed using brick. A new feature being introduced to the project is the use of stone accents on one facade of each of the six plans. The stone color and texture will be reminiscent of the stone found in the Andalusian region of Spain. The stone will be accented with materials such as brick and precast concrete. Precast concrete will also be prevalent on the homes and will be offered in a variety of colors and textures. Exterior precast details include items such as door and window trim, decorative rosettes and finials. Precast columns will come in a variety of shapes from tapered to spiral. Additional architectural features include towers, courtyard walls, exposed wood rafter tails, lintels, corbels and shutters, multi roof planes, and decorative chimney caps. All plans including the sales center have entry and/or central courtyards. Nine different earth tone color schemes will be used including multi -color roof tiles. The stucco colors are said to mimic those of southern Spain. Stucco colors are by Dunn Edwards and are Wooded Acre, Desert Gray, Chic Brick, Chaparral, Roman Brick, Bone, Graham Cracker, Sandpit, and Tan Plan. Accent stucco colors are Teddy Bear, Hopsack, Root Bear Float, Mesa Tan, Cedar Chest, Nomadic Desert, Cardboard, 3 P:\reports-alrc\2008\9-3-08\sdp 2008-904 td desert (Andalusia).doc Colorado Trail, and Smokey Topaz. These colors vary from tan to a dark brown. Roof tiles are by Eagle Roofing Products and will be a blend of medium tan, rust, brown, and dark brown. Wood used will be stained Frazee semi -transparent in Neutral Valley, Old Boot, Stockhouse, Steady Brown, Sturdy Brown, Burnished Brandy, Rich Mocha, Coconut Husk, and Log Cabin. Building heights for all one story plans are less than 22% with Plans 1 1-13, with the second story option no more than 28'. The partial second story, where used, is near the front part of the unit over the garage area. The sales center, which is to be constructed on a residential lot, matches the "old world" design and looks like a residence without a garage. It utilizes the same architectural features, materials and colors as the homes including, the same roofing, decorative columns, recessed windows and doors, archways, shutters, decorative wrought iron and brick and tile trim. This will be a one story structure having a maximum height of 22'. It will contain a reception area, offices for sales personnel, conference room and a homeowner association room. It will be converted to a residence (Plan 16) upon conclusion of its sales use. This will necessitate adding garages to the structure. A decorative stucco and tile gate is shown at the entry near the curb. Landscaping: Preliminary planting plans for typical front yard, sales center and adjacent models have been submitted. Plant materials are primarily desert and low or medium water users with an emphasis on a Mediterranean look. Trees include Cascolotes, Mesquites, Teax Eboneys, California Peppers, Tipu trees, and Olive trees. The only palm trees proposed are Sago and Mediterranean Fan palms for the model complex. A minimum of three 24" to 36" box size trees plus minimum 5 gallon shrubs, groundcover and vines shrubs and a small amount of lawn is provided for each residential lot. Shrubs include bougainvillea, junipers, natal plum, lantana, and dwarf bamboo. Decorative decomposed granite is used for planter area cover. The sales center is planted in the same design concept and plant materials. ANALYSIS Architecture: Staff finds that the overall architectural style and design of the proposed residences to be acceptable. The Spanish "old world" architecture and layout is compatible with the specific plan guidelines, the surrounding residences and club facilities in the project. The selected supplemental design elements appropriately enhance the architecture of the residences by providing sufficient architectural articulation. Also, the height, mass, and scale of the residences are appropriate for the project. 4 PAreports-a1rc\2008\9-3-08\sdp 2008-904 td desert (Andalusia).doc Landscaping: In general, the proposed landscape palette is acceptable. The assorted species of plants provide diversity and add character to the proposed buildings and meets the intent of the specific plan which is to create a lush desert character of visual variety and textural interest. The planting materials and design is similar and compatible to that used for the existing units. The plans do show daylilies which need shade in the summer to survive. A no -turf option is not indicated as required by the water efficiency ordinance. With the small amount of turf shown for each yard, it is easy to eliminate the turf should a homeowner want it. RECOMMENDATION That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2008-904, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with these units. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 2. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along streets. E P:\reports-a1rc\2008\9-3-08\sdp 2008-904 td desert (Andalusia).doc 3. Daylilies shall be planted in areas that provide shade during the summer. 4. A no turf front yard option shall be provided on the final landscaping plans and offered to home buyers. Prepared by: AAA 9'A Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Project aerial map 3. Existing approved architectural plans 4. Proposed architectural and landscaping plans 0 PAreports-alrc\2008\9-3-08\sdp 2008-904 td desert (Andalusial.doc ATTACHMENT 3 EXISTING PLANS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR ANDALUSIA PLAN 1 - 2,760 SQ. FT. PLAN 1 - 2,895 SQ. FT. + 288 SQ. FT. OPTION PLAN 1 - 3,942 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 - 3,060 SQ. FT. PLAN 2 - 4,298 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 - 3,546 SQ. FT. PLAN 3 - 5,083 SQ. FT. 0 5W PrWaty Liee _ I I I I I C.v Porto I I I I � • I Nook I I I 1 wr Kitchen 11 I Gent Room I I I II I I L____--J I I m _ _ _ O Mww Beth BCeroom 1 I '1 - _ r Pura O BYb2 ' I I i II " t�7L roll II II I Minter Suite I I I OL Counyae IIL��' I I 1112 PoNm lI I G I I Plan 1 2,760 sq. ft. 11, Elerr d ... d !�V Z vG- 1 - c z=� h J 2 U N N 0 Plan I Front Elevation U ; 5 U O � ° O 12 r- I I ' I I I A ' ' i CovaM PWo I I I 1 J Nook I ,I I IuII` I Kitd. I a.w tt; O I Grul Room E F I II w� i l �____-__-_--_--.I O Miner Beth fn'' I = �a..00 Bd.2 = I F.Y. O �o BYh2 e, m' - - O I I I I I Bdm L3 - Muter BuBe _ I I I IOBe 3 I I I �_1-- I Courgwd ® G". I 1 Buke ---------- -- - Pmtuo Gtfia 1 +28884 PL Plan 1 2,895 sq. ft. N N MY U N N O 0.,aw U 14 75^PMP?ivLi- CovaM PN I I vwnB.W 1 I II II r,r("'� vG� I Plan 1 3,942 sq. ft. N. Elevnuon A Ele,arw,, B Elerntion C !�V n� C vCF Q C V z-h 1^� v i U N 0 O� Plan I Front Elevations U U N 0 'N `hl tio� U 17 75-0" Property Lice Covered PeEo r -1 I Plan 1 3,942 sq. ft. U N m Elevation A Elevation B Elevation C Plan 1 Front Elevations z V O 00 �U M U N C) • H. ti � ° w O U 20 55-0- Pmpc" Live I W 3R 0 I e 1 5 i W d ii I I I 1 I I OOvcmdP� I I I I I I I I Nook I i I I v I _ I I Gww Rase war Mulct Sww 1 x I I I I Kilt I I I I I I 1r I ar l I 1 xaw. L J , n -� I L______J I LTI O O ____ w - I I I I ♦W nae I Mn0er1 a�,q Fyv I Z N I Bath I' O rm I Z, Vtell h I i I 1 a ® Redmvm2! - R =, Balk 2 Ga 1 I I Bed5/ C..ny d ORmh I1I I 1 55-0 R.ty L. - L - - Plan 2 3,060 sq. ft. U N Elevation A Ele,anan e Elevation C V z U N N 0 O� Plan 2 Front Elevations 2t U Ell U N N o_ �l O 23 7W Prapeny Lme — — 1 1 1 r®-r—_----yr®J� 1 J I _ 1 _ I I I 1 1 1 I I �.�d Pmm r �veedtr aho I I I C Vv PN o I I I �1 l I 1 i ------- 75-0'PmpcdyLw -- -- JC J a as g Y a y i mAl H Plan 2 4,298 sq. ft. 74 e Lu a E9 § U N 0 tio� o a,aw U 25 Elevanan A Elevation B Elevanon C Plan 2 Front Elevations rl i J S p e 95 WF�� n 8 a Al U N ti 0 � o � 04FA I IJ- Cevaed Pena - I I I I I I Master Soim I I I ww. L_ _llI 7 0 y Meal " O Beth I I 0 ilmnm . II I o cs..� FaYc N _ mto8 I I QI Pwd Il O I I uruv. vm.I CauttYeN I Irc�mo�+cfwrultiA _.__ 1 Rdt ]/ II OMfi I Z VCZ b Zo h � U I 1 I ' O Plan 2 ti 3,041 sq. ft. L� -- 48 £le, anon A 0 zv� � r�< U 0 Plan 2 Front Elevation U a C 39 �33 8 8 911 g w 6E fix$ U N N s ,o fl� N � o C O �w U 30 I I I I I u ..u. 3a 2 II Foyer 1 F.II Dmmg -- - ,y y I I I �4i00 I Dual Mute I II ❑ rnau I L__ ----- I I ® CouM1yW II Dn i S II Gu �um ' I m ® J 1" p _ P«hw � Oereea� I f=ad.I __---- L 1 I I I � I OPa°°d 1 I JJI 4 I .170 Sq Ft Plan 3 3,546 sq. ft. E7evaban A F.levaoan B Elevatron C U N N 0 .y Plan 3 Front Elevations ZZ I wI e tu i§$ a. J U N N O 4i e O 33 �3 U N N ti 0 'N YV �nvo� Z 34 n �W 7W Pml." Lice I I I - 1 Covertd Peso M—im 3 Room ------------- 3 r -----------� L-------``----"`-------� 1 00 I :'' F®BY ____ ____ ___ a Kikheo f____ - -_____- I . w II Dieivg I I I I I I Poyer I �-- ----------------- I I I I I -Y- Li 4 ww� Buhl -< 5a Q r; C BYh3 �� I B.*[ 3 L-1 y I — » I--------". I I 2 Pordw i I I .b 1 754- Prope ty Lice _ 1 I I I Z T•6 � O nz' O `I1 9 A.hed 1 r Sift J I I' Plan 3 1 5,083 sq. ft. I Frl U N N 0 'N �l 1 M. R. B� 3 I 1 �l I I 75-0 Property Line -----------�-----------� II II II covered Petro I —" -- 1i I �} a 9 Ey �R Z U2` o �R re Q0 z� Plan 3 5,083 sq. ft. ll Elevation A Elevation B Elevation C Plan 3 Front Elevations u C3 CZ ti U t� a S & W �$ 8 QZQ @ b Y W 9 9 A� a G5 d$ U N 0 Yv � " O W U 39 /. ` � / /� /: �� } } �� \ `% { /�� /\ .� , , � \ \ ' . , � � /\� � « % \ \\2 \� \«� /� » >91 � �\� \�^ \� � � < yƒ(/ \ : � 2<m�l� C�� �> s , � !,� /.� \ \//� / y .� yz . � /� ) . � . 2ew>/� � d� �// � § � y\�� y� \ � \� /� � :: 2§ƒ�k� { i t { i { '��r is,tia ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ANDALUSIA PLAN 11 - 3,128 TO 3,464 SQ. FT. PLAN 12 - 3,335 TO 3,692 SQ. FT. PLAN 13 - 3,020 TO 4,222 SQ. FT. PLAN 14 - 3,606 TO 4,121 SO. FT. PLAN 15 - 4,375 TO 4,907 SQ. FT. PLAN 16 - 4,582 TO 5,256 SO. FT. SALES CENTER - 5,698 SO. FT. SDP 2008-904 42