Loading...
2008 10 01 ALRC/�T•Q•� AM OF 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 OCTOBER 1, 2008 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2008-020 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approval of the Minutes of September 3, 2008. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS 2008-039 Applicant ................ KTGY Group, Inc., Architects Location .................. Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive Request .................. Review of Final Landscaping Plans for Jefferson Square Shopping Center. Action .................... Minute Motion 2008 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE October 1, 2008 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission Update IX. ADJOURNMENT This meeting of the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 5, 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, October 1, 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, September 26, 2008. DATED: September 26, 2008 CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\10-1-08\Final Agenda.doc MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 3, 2008 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:01 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 Director Les Johnson, 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 August 6, 2008. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Rooker to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2008-904 a request of T.D. Desert Development for the Architectural and Landscaping Plans for Six New Prototypical Unit Types and a Sales Center For Construction in Andalusia located on the East side of Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Representing the applicant, present were Mr. Mark Pekarek, Architect and Mr. Ronald Gregory, President of RGA Landscape Architects Mr. Pekarek explained it was customary for the developer to modify the plans every three years based on feedback received from the homeowners, which in turn added to the overall character of the project. He said plans numbered 11, 13, 14, and 16 had already been approved by the previous Site Development Permit. The modifications to those plans included minor interior changes and three new elevations. Plans numbered 12 and 15 were brand new. In addition, some of the streets in the development border the south side of the property, which include great mountain views from the front of the house. The back of the houses face the golf course, but the developer wanted the homeowners to be able to take advantage of the beautiful mountain views from the front of the house by adding a partial second story over the garage. Mr. Pekarek said different parts of the project had different height limits. Due to image corridor code requirements, half of the project was subject to a 22 foot height limit. The other half of the project was subject to a 28 foot height limit. Because most of the new phases were subject to the 28 foot height limit, the developer would like to give the homeowners the choice of an upstairs option. Committee Member Ronald Fitzpatrick thanked staff for the detailed and well organized information presented in the report. He asked staff if the proposed floor plans were consistent with the Specific Plan and the previously approved Site Development Permit. Staff replied the floor plans were in compliance and the modifications were very minor. Committee Member Fitzpatrick wanted to confirm the total number of units was 1,400 in the ±900 acre development. He asked staff if there was a map available reflecting this information. He also asked how many phases were included in the project and how many units were in each phase. Staff 2 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 replied there was a map, however, only an aerial map, of the vacant lots, was included in the staff report. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the number of units was subject to change based on the applicant's modifications during the build -out process and what restrictions the Specific Plan posed on the applicant. Planning Director Les Johnson replied the Specific Plan was only to provide a general overview of the parameters of the project. For example, it defined that the architectural design should be a Spanish W,prld or a Colonial style, but it did not define the exacV,'eiements and features. The same held true with the overaJ.(,21e�.. of the project and how it was built out. The Specific Plan` Wl not dictate the exact lot configuration and design: The configuration of the lots was addressed by the mappi through the tentative tract map process, and the phasing .� maps.,, Currently the northwest corner of the project had ait~Osd ;`.beon developed and the construction was moving east,'`ef+lser to Monroe Street, and moving south. FuOher, Staff was in ",Ived only in the phasing of the maps and not:,iI the building :pt the units. Thus, the , phasing of the m 'might.,",not necessarily match the construction phases of,�he pf,01e6.`' Planning Direor Johnson' said the applicant might be back in front of the Committee florae years from now requesting another modification to the; units. He explained the applicant used the Isaute st . w1fth the Rancho La Quinta project and it was very sudcessful. In addition, the project itself would be very mqoh conipte"nted by the offered diversity of house size and design;, how ever, the overall architectural character would carry on throughout the entire project. "oning. Director Johnson acknowledged that a better map should have been included in the staff report showing the Comh^fittee the overall general layout of the project. He explained the project boundary was bounded by the land located east of Madison Street, south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and west of Monroe Street. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said an overall general layout map of the project would be very useful to the Committee as the staff report also asks the Committee to address circulation of the site. K Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Planning Director Johnson explained the Committee was responsible for the review of the design of the homes that would be built on the lots and the proposed model home complex. The major issues with regards to circulation had already been addressed through the previously approved mapping process. Committee Member Fitzpatrick questionedth�e small size of the lots rear setbacks. Mr. Pekarek replied that the first three proposed plans were on 55-foot w4,e"16ft and the other three proposed plans were on 75-foot,,16tsi, with t typical 108-foot deep lots, which allowed for a,364"bot'backyard,'� Committee Member Fitzp 'i� said lie did not ha'vO'-any more questions and expressed hoWI,Ver,y much he liked'the project and that, it was very well execute#. Committee Member ,Arh d, asked staff itthe Committee was responsible for revieWlr g irv.i.puon plans -and at what stage of the project would they be poovideO.,. Planning Director Johnson replied the irrigation plant would be provided for review through the ,Final LArtdscaping 'PI,ans approval process. Committee Member Arnolo 'said that tfiare. had been time in the past when the irri+, tiory pians had ;trot been included in the Final Landscapir91 Plans tfufs,ttt"andelay in the approval from CVWD. Committee 'M2fitar ` Arnold mentioned the Coachella Valley Overseed Certificate Meeting he recently attended to obtain certification to overseed, and that the Best Buy project in La 4uinta was brought up as an example because of the drip irrigation soaker hose system installed for the turf which would create problems if the turf was shaved and over seeded as it would not be able to reseed. Committee Member Arnold said if he had reviewed those plans he might have been able to save the applicant the trouble he was experiencing now. Planning Manager David Sawyer explained that the procedure of the preliminary Site Development Permit review was not for staff or the Committee to go over the irrigation plans for any project in that great of a detail. Further, even though the irrigation plans were included in the Final Landscaping Plans which was the final review stage of the project by the Committee, the 2 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 application process required the applicant to have the irrigation plans approved and certified by the CVWD prior to submitting the Final Landscaping Plans to the Planning Department. Planning Director Johnson explained that therefore, Staff heavily relied on the expertise of CVWD's plan checkers despite the fact the ordinance stated the burden was on the City of La Quinta. Thus, staff does not review the irrigation plans in great detail because CVWD performs a very thorough review not only from the calculation aspect of it, but also in regards to the type of irrigation proposed. Planning Director Johnson stated that, indeed, the ultimate responsibility does lie with the City of La Quinta; however, staff greatly relied on the CVWD to provide that expertise. Hence, staff's concern was minimal as the plans had to be approved by the CVWD prior to filing Final Landscaping Plans with the City. Committee Member Arnold said he did not have further questions and congratulated the applicant on the project as he thought it was very sophisticated and very well executed. Committee Member Rooker thanked the applicant for the effort of putting together the presentation materials. He stated he did not appr of Plan 11 as the front door was not visible from the .plan shttl on the model board. Committee Member Rooke 4ecomri ;nded the use of an architectural element such as a roof covering to highlight the front door. He pointed out than the windlow-ofthe,, arage was greatly highlighted and the way. the, plarr -,,was designed a normal person would head towards the garb instead of the front door. He would like to see the sOihe type of detail at the entry way as shown for the garage and possibly some type of a paved walkway as well. Corrkinittee Member Arnold said the front door for Plan 11 was to the right side of the unit. Mr. Pekarek replied that to the right of the image shown there was an entry gate which showed on the side elevation image of the model and would reveal a tower pulled back in the center of a portico with a high window over the entry. The entry is more visible than would be seen from a street elevation. An alternative paving material was suggested to differentiate the entry from the driveway. W Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick reviewed the elevations on Plan 11 and pointed out that the distinguishing features were not readily apparent from the street elevation. Committee Member Rooker pointed out elevation A had a tower above the front elevation, but elevations B and C did not and reiterated a differentiation of paving materials would distinguish the main entry and the designated walkway from the street. Mr. Pekarek gave the option of plotting the flow of traffic or flipping the house on the lot so when your-&e' looking the entry way would face the "L" shape from the street. Committee Member Rooker state¢ hd;'-did not want the applicant to give a specific design feature; that would be u ed in achieving the suggested differentiatiort and highlight of the front entry way. He only stated his $u $tion ,d if the appiie�"t agreed they could work on the architet f3ral, etaxls. There being no fu , questions, it, as moved and seconded by Committee Memi rt,-Rooker/Fit ipitrick to adopt Minute Motion 2008-018, recbrrimor4ng approval of Site Development Permit 2008-904 with staff' recommended conditions and the following. addition: ■ Plan 11 'entry be", -augment I ed with an accent such as decorative paving. Unanin'iciwdy approved. B. Site Nveloprtnt Permit 2008-903 a request of Talbert Development, tt for the review of Architectural and Landsca*0 Plains for a 50,019 Square Foot Retail Center located East, of Washington Street and West of Caleo Bay Drive, Approximately 350 Feet North of Avenue 58. Princ poF Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Present were Jeff Talbert, Executive V.P. with Talbert Development, Inc., Michael Buccino, Landscape Architect, and John Abbassi, Architect. Mr. Michael Buccino, Landscape Architect, said that he suggested to the applicant the use of Mandina Domestics, in a 6 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 compact form, in combination with Alasma and red roses, along the parking area. The Mandina would not require trimming while at the same time it would look very nice, it would stay the right height, and in the winter it would stay very red. Committee Member Rooker said the Mandina and the Alasma would be redundant as both plants would grow the same way. Mr. Buccino commented that the level of the ground, in this area, had been lowered during grading and, the intent was to choose a plant tall enough to provide the proper screening of the oncoming lights. However, the plants would not be placed in a continuous, straight line but:-W'O'uI& be staggered in a manner that still provides screening pf headiits. Mr. Buccino explained he did not want to ray- sglely on the Alasma to build up. Committee Member Fitzpatrick =Oska&4f�,the above mentioned plants were the only deviation frof , the plans provided for the staff report. Mr. Buccino confirmed.; Committee Member Rooker thanked the;,Applicant for providing very clear and detailed presentation materials. He requested that staff include a general overall map of the adjacent areas for future projects so that the Committee would be able to see how the proposed project would fit in with the existing structures around it. Committee Member Rooker expressed his disagreement of having the beautiful frontage of the project face Caleo Bay Drive and not Washington Street. He said he viewed this project as a strip center and as such the configuration of it should be facing Washington Street. The way it was proposed the visual impact and the exposure of the tenants were greatly lessened and people would not be able to enjoy and appreciate the delightful architecture from the street, unless being in the shopping center. Mr. John Abbassi, Architect, replied that site plans with different configurations of the positioning of the buildings were submitted, however, based on the feed back received from staff they were not feasible due the fact that the building would be blocking the neighborhood, in addition, the main building would have to be pushed back and it would fall within the 150 foot Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 height limitation, which would not allow for the main building design and it would not have the same effect. Mr. Abbassi explained the applicants attempted to open the site by spacing out the buildings and offering outdoor sitting areas to provide more visibility for the residents as well as some visibility from Washington Street and to invite patrons to stop and enjoy the amenities rather than drive through the site. Planning Director Les Johnson said staff had reviewed four different site plans presented by the developer and the concerns addressed by the Committee regarding the project's rear exposure to Washington Street had been raised. Unfortunately, difficulties were encountered in,trying to meet the 22 foot maximum height provision andssed on communications with the HOA of the adjacent,l6ke La Quinta development the residents strongly expressed 'heir dl'aagreement in having the rear of a building face the dev>samrt'as it was in the case of the recently built medical facility:`,,, �,N Planning Director JOhnispn, mentiorie ,that during the last meeting with the developer had expressed his concern not necessarily with the Grientatiore.: :;i<3 building, but with the treatment"+�iin on the western end of the building and providing expoSire of building A out to Washington Street. �.r Committa'6,Me laer. Arnold trointed out that there was only one access point to the-ptxS t from Washington Street. Planning Directar,Johr In replied the applicant didn't have the option to propose.rikore a s'points as there already was an entrance at the north and of?Valgreens, another entrance point would be from the 'north end of the medical facility, and there was the same stipWation for the vacant lot between the proposed project arx the medical facility. Eventually when the entire strip of land! was developed it would allow traffic to flow through from;one end to the other. Committee Member Rooker asked staff for clarification on the height limitations. Planning Manager Sawyer explained the building needed to meet the base level of 22 foot height limit, but the architectural projections could go above that. Planning Director Johnson mentioned that the back of buildings B and D were taller and had larger mass area than buildings A and C. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen said the general roof line on 8 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 buildings B and D was higher because there was a 40 foot height limitation beyond the 150 foot setback. Committee Member Rooker reiterated that he viewed Washington Street as a major street and the frontage of the project should be oriented towards Washington Street and not introverted and facing Caleo Bay Drive. Mr. Jeff Talbert, Executive V.P. with Talbert Development, Inc. and Mr. John Abbassi, Architect went o )44-bpuple of different scenarios of reconfiguring the positioOR,01 of the buildings and explaining to the Committee why `°th"d options were not feasible. Mr. Talbert mentioned,he,had tried to purchase the vacant property right above th,k,orie, he acquired;. however, the asking price was not corr%}iarable to the current market conditions. Further, to ash'Wth expbsure and visibility of the future business tenants at the,elte.:,'Mr: Talbert said the intent was to place a nice monument sign facing Washington Street complemented by lor,,. Buccino's exh�llent landscaping design. Mr. Buccino expresso.+ ,.concept wto develop a courtyard space that would fit in,, --With La dulhta's outdoor living environment and high end sr Pin Comr,mttee lt>rternber Fitzpatrick expressed he very much liked the pro ct and That it incorporated a lot outdoor living amenities and lant�bapjrio,.:-He liked fiat the buildings were broken apart independent cI $rpm eaYer allowing some visibility of the site from. Washington Street. He said he was a little bit concerned with 'the solar'exposure on the south elevation. He recommeftded tho applicant should try to relocate four or five parking sages somewhere else on the project and use that ice on south end for a larger planter area. The applicant sWd'theyOCommendation would be taken into consideration and the entireI length of that area could be shaded. t, Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked what steps the applicant had taken to obtain the LEED certification they were aiming for. Mr. Abbassi replied the applicant was trying to install solar panels on the roof top of the buildings to provide 85 per cent of the energy. However, if the roof top panels were not sufficient to provide that much energy, an alternative would be to design carports and place additional solar panels on the carports. 0 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick questioned if the site was accessible for large trucks for delivery purposes for the future business tenants. Mr. Talbert explained the site did not incorporate mega size stores, therefore a loading dock was deemed unnecessary. The anticipation was that a truck no bigger than a UPS truck would be accessing the site for deliveries. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the surrounding community had expressed any concerns with regards to the project. Mr. Abbassi replied there were no concerns except for lighting and the only light fixtures being used were down lights. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the starkness and lack of articulation along the north elevation of buildings A and B mentioned by staff in the report. Mr. Abbassi explained there were large trees in that area which screened that portion of the building. Committee Member Fitzpatrick talked about the 10 foot walkway through the center of the parking lot with a circular configuration allowing enough space for a seating area. He asked if the area was covered with a trellis and if lighting was installed. Mr. Buccino confirmed and added a misting system would be installed as well and possibly a water feature, however, he was still deciding on the design of the water feature. Mr. Talbert said the misting system they were looking into was from Mist America and it would have a fan incorporated into it making the water very fine so that it cooled the air around rather then getting people wet. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was pleased to see that bike racks were made available as well as ADA compatible pedestrian passes from Washington Street to the project site. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the mentioning of a possible cellular tower being installed on one of the buildings and if that would interfere with the height limitations. Mr. Talbert replied the applicant had not yet applied for the permit, but the intent was that if it were to happen the tower would be placed inside a building and not on the exterior. Principal Planner Mogensen said if the applicant were to apply for a permit, it would be presented to the Committee through a 10 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Conditional Use Permit. Planning Director Les Johnson explained it would be presented to the Committee only if the permit required architectural changes, if the tower was on the inside, it would not go in front of the Committee. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if this was the last time the project would be reviewed by the Committee. Planning Director Johnson replied the project would be presented again through the Final Landscaping Plans. Planning Manager Sawyer added this was the last time the Cotttrittee could make architectural recommendations. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked)f benp4l seating would be provided. Mr. Abbassi replied it VVW8". �. Committee Member Fitzpatyipk,asked,of the sidewalks could be widened. Mr. Talbert replied that; was iiot an option because of fire regulations. Discussion about;tbe length of the parking lot and the size of the'4idewalk follow e4, Planning Director Johnson �ji6jd-the depth' of the sidewalk, 12 feet, was not a concern from .s aff's standpoint. However, solar cpr#rbhwas mentidhod for tho south elevation buildings A and Br Thar+ had been'pther projects in the past and one in partieWar whets the awning�s.,were extended out further on the south si#44 thati on -the north side to minimize the direct impact of the suns to the-ft ` the building. Committee Member Fitzpaitrick said"he would like some measures to be taken in that effect as there vv�rs, only a few trees that did not provide much shade for the store fronts. He asked if a trellis was planned for as it was hard to tell from the plans. Mr. Abbassi replied that both, trelll& and awnings were included in the plans. Mr. Abbassi pad he could extend the awnings as suggested by staff and thi6tommittee. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant disagreed with any of staff's recommendations. Mr. Abbassi replied the applicant did not. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he was very pleased with the project design, architecture and location and he found it to be very compatible with other local projects. 11 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if staff felt that the applicant had provided sufficient shading for the buildings on the north elevation. Principal Planner Mogensen replied the applicant had added more trees along the north elevation. Also the plans showed a couple of vertical trellises along the rear section of building A in addition to three archways with a door in the center and a brick archway on the western potion of the north elevation. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if lighting would be installed. Staff replied lantern type light fixtures were identified in the plans. Mr. Buccino added there were some vines as well. Planning Director Johnson explajn6t(staff,400 discussed with the applicant and emphasized the importance —qf not having the aesthetic of the back of a b..Wding in regards to tI<te exposure of , building A to Washingtoji eet at!� to a lesser eictend of building C because Walgreen- WoUldl bhield most of it. The applicant utilized changes in atrial and color to provide architectural diversity a new concdpt not previously used in our community, which was` why staff I1,004-that as a discussion matter for the Committee as,_'", used to)a�recommendation. There big no further I stions, It °was moved and seconded by Gommitteo Members ;Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion ,2,,008-019, recommending approval of Site Development Permit" `2008-96a with staff' recommended conditions and the admitting`t ,,the `'two '- set of landscaping plans submitted before the 'n"'eting identifying enhanced landscape areas, a pedestrian ramp" J orn the east and a set of stairs. ROLL CALL: AYES: Committee Members Arnold and Fitzpatrick. NOES: Committee Member Rooker. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member Rooker asked staff what the established procedure was about the ability the Committee had to view plans off the record while in the preliminary process and assist staff in making comments and recommendations to the applicant. His concern was that when plans were presented to the Committee at the Site 12 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Development Permit stage or the Final Landscaping Plans the Committee was very limited as to the recommendations that could be made due to the final stages of the project and costs associated with the design and presentation materials. Planning Director Johnson replied the Committee had not functioned like that in the past; mainly, based on City Council's direction that the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was a one -stop review in order to eliminate additional delays in the approval process. However, that was not to say that an informal review of conceptual plans would not be possible, but staff would need to seek advise from Council and report back to the Committee. Further, the Committee would be able to bring this up with City Council during the Joint Commissions Meeting on November 25`h Committee Member Arnold added a preliminary review of the plans might be helpful to staff and the applicant as the Committee might have better solutions to some of the difficulties experienced during the preliminary process in deciding on architecture, landscaping and irrigation systems. Planning Director Johnson explained that staff heavily relied on the expertise proyidai —by the plan checkers of CVWD for the irrigation system and aid not, require the applicant to submit detailed irrigation plans at .tlTo,\preliminaliy stages of the project because the applicant was closely wWking ith ,Q)/WD and following their guidance in order to obtain-approvaj. Committee " mber`f atrick said it would be better if the Committee was `tpvolv0d 'in the development of a project from the begiribing, especially if architectural difficulties were in place as the Committee had the knowledge and expertise to critique and provide alternatives. As, it was the Committee's responsibility was to look at what had `afl'rdy been decided and pass judgment on it. Committee Member Fitzpatrick would prefer to go over the project with staff prior to ALRC review and would like to have a better idea of the way the project fit in within the surrounding area. He said sometimes the relativity of the questions he posed to the applicant in regards to an application at hand were questioned by staff and he would like to be able to ask those questions as they were relevant from his stand point. 13 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 Planning Director Johnson replied that staff was and has always been available and more than willing to meet with the Committee Members and answer any questions they might have on a project and encouraged them to please do so, even if it was after hours. He expressed the difficulty with some of the questions, concerns and comments being brought up was that they were out of the scope of the definitive application being reviewed and were in a way back - stepping. For example, the circulation questions discussed today, the Committee should understand that at this point of,the project, it would not be relevant to comment on circulation beca "it: had already been decided by the layout of the map and the m ap, had been tentatively approved. The applicant was only plottino',the,hpmes that would go on the lots defined by the tentative trac . 'Tq Committee Member Rooker asked it` was his responsib4ity to contact the City and find out if any mesMos, had�bpen left for 'hi ta or if the City would contact him. Committee Member Arno lid said the City`°My Auld normally contact the Committee Members and rt if Ahern as it hA4 happened to him in the past. Planning Directoi Johnson cc "firmed that staff would notify the Committee;w henevar the public was trying to contact them. VIII. PLANNING S FIT IM Planning Ccr Mtnissj6n Update: Planning Manaq* David Sawyer said there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the last update. Joint CitX Council / Commission Meetings Planning Director Johnson said the joint City Council/Commission Meetings was scheduled for Tuesday, November 25", early in the evening and usually the Planning Commission would go in at 5:00 p.m. The meeting agenda was not available yet, normally two or three topic items would be identified that the Committee as a group felt were important and relevant to discuss with City Council. Staff would consider the proposed items and work with City Manager's office to add the items on the agenda. 14 Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Minutes September 3, 2008 IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 1, 2008. This meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. on September 3, 2008. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA Secretary 15 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2008 CASE NO: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS (FLP) 2008-039 APPLICANT: KTGY GROUP, INC., ARCHITECTS OWNER: REGENCY MARINIA LA QUINTA, LLC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CLOSSON & CLOSSON REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR JEFFERSON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee's (ALRC) review of the Final Landscape Plan is to verify that the submitted plan is consistent with the project's approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and that it is in compliance with the project's landscape related conditions of approval. The ALRC's review culminates in a recommendation to the Planning Director who has responsibility for approval of the Final Landscape Plans. BACKGROUND: The project site is a 10.7 acre site for which a 90,440 square foot shopping center has been approved by the City Council. The site is rectangular in shape with approximately 815 feet of frontage on Jefferson Street and 572 feet on Fred Waring Drive (Attachment 1). There are existing single family residences immediately to the south with a retention basin, park and CVWD well site immediately to the west. To the north across Fred Waring Drive is a large landscaped area and residences, with a shopping center in Indio to the east across Jefferson Street. 1 p\reports-a1rc\2008\10-1-08\f1p 08-039 regency marinita alrc rpt.doc Preliminary development plans for this project were reviewed by the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) on February 6, 2008 and recommended for approval with conditions. On April 8, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the project (Specific Plan 2002-062 Amendment #2 and Site Development Permit (SDP) 2008-898), with the City Council approving them on May 6, 2008. Review of final architectural, precise grading and other improvement plans is underway. The site is presently being rough graded. As a brief recap, the approved design of the center includes five one story buildings with a Spanish -Mediterranean style highlighted by tower features extending above the main roof height (Attachment 2). The preliminary plant palette approved consisted primarily of desert and other low water use plants. Trees include the Tipu tree, Chitalpa, Mexican Blue Palm, Pindo Palms, Willow Acacia, and Palo Verde. Shrubs included plants such as Cassias, Brittlebrush, Ocotillo, Red Yucca, and Deer Grass. No turf was proposed to be used. The SDP approval included the following project -specific landscape -related conditions of approval: 57. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 58. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. Said landscaping shall be constantly maintained by the center owner with damaged, dead or dying plant material immediately replaced with healthy plant material of equivalent size. 59. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 60. The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, be reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee and Public Works Director, and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An application for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project and be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Planning Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. 2 p\reports-alrc\2008\10-1-08\flp 08-039 regency marinita alrc rpt.doc NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the Planning Director. 61. Two additional trees shall be planted adjacent to the south property line next to the retention basis and all trees along the south property line shall be of a variety that does not produce an excess of leaf debris. Additionally, all landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. 62. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 63. The front and side walkway areas of all buildings shall be provided with small planters for shrub, groundcover, vines, decomposed granite and where possible small growing trees, the number and variety of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 64. The parking lot surface shall be screened by minimum earthen berming of three feet height or a decorative masonry wall of equivalent height, the design of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. PROPOSAL: The applicants have prepared final irrigation and planting plans for the project (Attachment 3). These plans include the perimeter areas, parking lot, and area around Shops 1, 2 and 3. Although architectural plans for Major A have not yet been approved and are not part of this review, the planting on the south side of the pad is included. Pad A is a future phase, and Major B (Fresh & Easy) and the CVS drugstore sites are to be developed separately by the respective companies. Therefore, the landscaping around those buildings will be reviewed as separate plans at a later time. They will be tied in with the site irrigation system and maintained by one entity. ANALYSIS: Compliance with Approved Preliminary Landscape Plan The proposed landscaping plans are in conformance with the approved conceptual landscaping plans previously reviewed by the ALRC, Planning Commission and City Council except for changes required by the conditions of approval. The trees and shrubs approved with the preliminary plan are included, in the final plans. The trees include 24"-36" box size canopy trees and 12' bth (brown trunk height) Mexican Blue Palms and Pindo Palms. Shrubs are shown at 5 gallons except for shrub 3 p\reports-afrc\2008\10-1-08\flp 08-039 regency marinita alrc rpt.doc grass species at one gallon size. Groundcovers are one gallon in size planted two to four feet on center depending on its growth patterns (Attachment 3 - Sheet P-1). The majority of the trees used will be canopy trees, including 36" box trees along the west and south (adjacent to existing residences) perimeters of the site (Attachment 3 - Sheets P-2 and P-4). Palm trees are only shown at the corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, in front of Shops 2, and on the south side of Shops 1 (Attachment 3 - Sheets P-3, P-4 and P-5). Shrubs and groundcovers include desert and other low and moderate water use plants. All planter areas will be provided with decorative gravel, rubble and boulders. Compliance with Approved Conditions of Approval The applicants have satisfied all conditions of approval, except for the wall design as noted below, and submitted a plan that is desert appropriate and attractive. Two additional trees were required per Condition #61 along the south property line near Jefferson Street. This has been provided in the final plans (Attachment 3 - Sheet P-4). Additional planting around the buildings is required per Condition #63 and has been provided for Shops 1 and 3 (Attachment 3 - Sheets P-1 and P-3). Condition #64 requires the parking lot surface be screened by either minimum earthen berming of three feet height or a decorative masonry wall of equivalent height. The final plans include a 3'-4" high stucco finish block wall adjacent to the parking lot areas along Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive (Attachment 3 - Sheets P-4 and P-5 and Attachment 4). Additional treatment should be provided to the proposed walls, such as a stone or concrete cap, oversized stucco covered block on top, etc. Compliance with Standard Code Requirements The Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans have been reviewed by Staff and meet the requirements of the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance and has been approved by both the Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner (as stamped on the submitted plan sheets). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee adopt a minute motion recommending to the Planning Director approval of Final Landscape Plan 2008- 039 for Site Development Permit 2007-898, subject to the following conditions: 1. The irrigation systems for all of the buildings shall be tied in with the overall site irrigation system and maintained by one maintenance firm. 4 p\reports-alrc\2008\10-1-08\flp 08-039 regency marinita alrc rpt.doc 2. The screen walls (parking lot and drive-thru) adjacent to Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive shall be provided with additional decorative treatment, such as a stone or concrete cap, oversized stucco covered block on top, etc. to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Approved architectural elevations (for reference only) 3. Final irrigation and planting plans 4. Screen wall design Prepared by: <:�;bC vu G A Stan Sawa Principal Planner 5 p\reports-alrc\2008\10-1-08\flp 08-039 regency marinita alrc rpt.doc CASE Na ATTACHMENT 1 FRED WARING DRIVE o MILES AVENUE w w z O WESTWARD HOIDR CASE MAP FLP 2008-039 ,SCALE: NTS 6 FTACHMENT 2 Urno„,¢ �w�LLa� i7tm"o% F`a Yai�€ Ba r -- � ! ( § § ) d ! ( » ,. e ff | 2 I 'I L 1 ti b 0 0 N Q W 0 � k � M � -- - c -- - - ( / ( ) § } ) 10 ATTACHMENT 4 w Q U 0 (V 110 w coN a 3 CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL v Architecture & Landscape Review Committee Attendance Tracking July 2008 - September 2009 Jason Arnold Ray Rooker Ronald Fitz atrick 07/02/08 Present Present Present 08/06/08 Present Present Present 09/03/08 Present Present Present