2008 11 05 ALRCa,
0� 4 Qum&
OF Fk�
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
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2008-021
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 October 1, 2008.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS 2008-041
Applicant ................ The Quarry at La Quinta
Location .................. North of Tom Fazio Lane and South of Cahuilla
Park Road Within the Quarry at La Quinta
Request .................. Review of Final Landscaping Plans for the
Expansion of a Maintenance Facility.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2008
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE
November 5, 2008
B. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS 2008-043
Applicant ................ Washington 111, Ltd (Bill Sanchez)
Location .................. Northeast Corner of Washington Street and
Avenue 47
Request .................. Review of Final Landscaping Plans for Phase 4 of
the Washington Park Shopping Center.
Action .................... Minute Motion 2008
C. Item ........................ FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS 2008-042
Applicant ................ R. T. Hughes Company, Inc.
Location .................. Southwest Corner of Avenue 60 and Madison
Street
Request .................. Review of Final Landscaping Plans for Malaga
Estates; Tentative Tract Map 33597.
Action .................... Minute Motion 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 December 3, 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, November 5, 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, October 31, 2008.
DATED: October
�31, 2008
CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
PAReports - ALRC\2008\10-1-08\Final Agenda.doc
Twf 4O
(b,w
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2008
CASE NO: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS (FLP) 2008-043
APPLICANT: BILL SANCHEZ, WASHINGTON 111, LTD.
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR PHASE 4 OF THE
WASHINGTON PARK SHOPPING CENTER
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE
47
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:
Building pads within the Washington Park retail center have been approved through
multiple Site Development Permits in accord with the Washington Park Specific Plan
(SP 87-01 1, Amendment No. 4). Existing portions of Washington Park include Target,
Circuit City, Office Depot, and Trader Joe's. The most recently completed building pads
are Shops 3, 4, and Sub -Major 5 containing the recently opened Lumpy's golf store.
Preliminary development plans for a parking lot and landscaping within this phase of
Washington Park were reviewed by the Architectural and Landscape Review
Committee (ALRC) on January 2, 2008 and recommended for approval with
P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-043 Washington Park alrc rpt.doc
conditions. No buildings have been proposed for this portion of the project at this time.
The Planning Commission approved the project on February 26, 2008. In their
approval, the Planning Commission conditioned the removal of a water feature
identified on the original plans at the corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47.
Review of the precise grading and other improvement plans are currently underway.
The site is presently being rough graded and underground retention basins are being
constructed.
The SDP approval included the following relevant landscape -related conditions of
approval:
46. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
professional, shall be reviewed by the ALRC 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, including perimeter landscaping, and
be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the
Municipal Code and the Coachella Valley Water District's Landscaping and
Irrigation Design Ordinance. 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.
Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the Planning Director.
Note: Final landscaping plans are not approved for construction until approved
and signed by the Planning Director.
49. Landscaping placed between the rear of all future building pads and the
Washington Street and/or Avenue 47 street frontage shall be revisited and
reviewed with future Washington Park Site Development Permits. All perimeter
landscaping adjacent to the rear of any future building pads shall consist of
larger specimens having significant foliage for screening purposes.
52. All trees planted within the parking lot shall consist of a 2.5 inch caliper
specimen with a 10 foot height and having significant foliage. All trees shall
meet or exceed the parking lot shading requirement referenced under Section
9.150.080 of the Parking Ordinance.
53. The applicant shall provide either hanging or climbing landscaping with
significant foliage over the face of the retaining wall.
54. No outdoor water features shall be permitted under this Site Development
Permit.
PAReports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-043 Washington Park alrc rpt.doc 2
PROPOSAL:
The applicants have prepared final irrigation, landscape lighting, and planting plans for
the project (Attachment 1). These plans include landscaping along perimeter streets
and within the parking lot, but do not include landscaping on future building pads. The
landscaping around those individual buildings will be reviewed in conjunction with their
respective Site Development Permits.
The proposed plans identify a variety of water -efficient plant specimens such as Palo
Verdes, Red Yuccas, Desert Spoons, and Thornless Sweet Acacias that are in
conformance with the plant palate identified in the Specific Plan and consistent with
the remainder of Washington Park.
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 and the Planning Commission. The
plans identify a variety of water -efficient plant specimens that are in conformance with
the plant palate identified in the Washington Park Specific Plan and are consistent with
existing landscaping within the remainder of Washington Park.
The trees and shrubs approved with the preliminary plan are included in the final plans.
The trees generally include 24"-36" box size canopy trees, including larger multi -trunk
48" Palo Verde specimens to be placed along the street frontage to screen the rear of
future buildings. Shrubs are shown at 5 gallons except for shrub grass species and
groundcover at one gallon size. Cacti, Aloe, and Yucca are identified at 5 and 15 gallon
sizes. 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.
The majority of the trees used will be canopy trees, including alternating rows of Tipu
and Palo Verde trees within the parking areas. Palm trees are identified at the end of
parking aisles and at the higher -visibility corner of Washington Street and Avenue 47.
Compliance with Approved Conditions of Approval
The applicants have satisfied all conditions of approval, except for condition of
approval No. 53, which requires that "The applicant shall provide either hanging or
climbing landscaping with significant foliage over the face of the retaining wall." The
retaining wall is located behind a future building pad on Sheet PL-4, but is not
identified on the plan, and no hanging or climbing plants have been identified within
the adjacent planting area.
PAReports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-043 Washington Park alrc rpt.doc 3
Because this Site Development Permit does not include any proposed buildings for
construction, condition #49 identifies that additional landscaping may be installed
along the perimeter if deemed necessary during the review of future Site Development
Permits. Staff recommends that Conditions #52 and #54, regarding tree sizes and the
prohibition on water features, be noted on the revised final landscaping to ensure that
the conditions are met.
Compliance with Standard Code Requirements
The Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans have been reviewed by Staff, meet the
requirements of the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance, and have been previously
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-
043 for Site Development Permit 2007-901, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall revise the plans to identify the hanging or climbing
landscaping to be placed on retaining walls, as per Site Development Permit
2007-901 Condition of Approval No. 53, approved under Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2008-008.
2. Conditions of Approval #52 and #54 shall be noted on the revised final
landscaping plans, as per Site Development Permit 2007-901 approved under
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-008.
Attachments:
1. Location Map and Aerial
2. SDP 07-901 Conceptual Landscaping Plans
3. ALRC Minutes from January 2, 2008
4. Final irrigation and planting plans (location map and index on cover sheet)
Prepared by:
An w J. Mogensen
Pribcipal Planner
P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-043 Washington Park alrc rpt.doc 4
ATTACHMENT 1
{
ii
Vim:-.i'.iY--=•�
W
.. y6
ATTACHMENT 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January_ 2, 2008
16. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion
2008-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2007-899 as recommended. Unanimously approved.
F. Site Development Permit 2007-901; a request of Bill Sanchez for
review of parking lot, landscaping, and retaining wall plans within The
Washington Park Retail Center located on the northeast corner of
Washington Street and Avenue 47 within The Washington Park Retail
Center.
1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning Department.
2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the location of the
ADA path. Staff showed its location.
3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about the location of a
large water feature on Washington and Avenue 48. Staff
identified the location and replied it was actually on Avenue 47.
4. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked how many parking spaces
were involved. Staff replied they did not have that exact
number. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was
some formulation used for the parking spaces. Staff said the
formula was 4 parking spaces per thousand for this Specific
Plan.
5. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about regulations on the
hand rail. Staff pointed out the placement and gave a
description of materials to be used.
6. Committee Member Fitzpatrick commented on the key or master
page again. Planning Director Johnson said the old projects
would not have this key page, but that staff is updating the
application requirements so that all new projects would have it
included.
7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about carports in the
parking lot. Principal Planner Mogensen replied the Municipal
Code requires carports for 30% of a parking lot if it is being
used for office or medical, but since this project is retail it
would be optional.
N
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked why they are looking at a
landscaping plan before there are even buildings involved. Staff
replied the Municipal Code requires a Site Development Permit
application for a parking lot.
9. Bill Sanchez, Construction Manager for Washington 111, Ltd.,
80-618 Declaration Avenue, Indio, said the site plan and site
configuration had been approved via their Specific Plan. He said
the building locations and the configurations were approved, as
well as the ingress/egress locations. The submitted the
landscaping because the want to start on improvements in the
parking lot and the landscape as there are some leasing
negotiations on these possible buildings. The actual footprint of
the buildings might change within the pad location and at that
point they would come in with an additional site permit for
those buildings.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the parking lot spaces were
based on the amount of square footage. Principal Planner
Mogensen said they were but those numbers were decided
during the Specific Plan application. Planning Director Johnson
went over the calculations used for the parking space
determination.
11. Committee Member Bobbitt wanted to go back to the size of
the planters in the parking lot, for the trees, which was an issue
he brought up 10 years ago. These planters in the parking lot.
He could not tell from the plans what size the planters were and
if they were in the shape of diamonds. Mr. Sanchez replied they
were four-by-fours. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had a
problem with that. He thought the City had changed their
specifications to a larger size. Principal Planner Mogensen said
the planters were identified on the plans as being nine feet wide
and square.
12, Mr. Sanchez said this particular phase had a new, local
landscape architect and he suggested they move away from the
diamond design.
13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City's design guidelines
dictated a certain size planter. Planning Director Johnson said
he thought they did, but he didn't know if they guidelines were
ever changed. They would need to check the City's minimum
standards and report back to the Committee. He wasn't sure
9
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
what the minimum standard was but he was pretty sure it was
a four-by-four.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said he had a bit of problem when
he got on the Committee originally and each the City Council
interviewed him for a new term they asked him what kind of
progress he had made. One of the issues was regarding the
planting of trees and their discussion led him to believe they all
had the same understanding. He now believes that may not be
true and asked how he could be assured his recommendations
from the past ten years were being followed, Planning Director
Johnson replied that such changes must be made via the
Municipal Code Amendment process. He couldn't speak about
the last ten years, but would keep the Committee apprised of
any future amendments.
15. Committee Member Bobbitt said he does not have many issues,
but one of them is the size of trees. He realized it would impact
the amount of parking spaces by increasing the size of the
planter boxes. He asked staff to follow up on the size of the
planter to make sure it would not be four feet. The percentage
of trees that survive in those little squares is very low. Principal
Planner Mogensen added the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD) had new standards for the size of tree wells and
thought it was five feet.
16. Committee Member Bobbitt said he would not be happy with
five feet either. It should be a minimum of six feet and ideally
eight feet. Staff asked his opinion of a four -by -nine in this
situation. Committee Member Bobbitt answered he was a
Certified Arborist and did a lot of studying on trees, especially
attrition as in the case of the Peppers and the Mesquites. He
finds that the architects rarely go back to a project ten years
later. He then explained how the plantings should be handled
and what could happen if done incorrectly.
17. Mr. Sanchez said they would work with staff to come up with
an adequate planting area.
18. Committee Member Arnold said he liked the plant palette.
19. Committee Member Bobbitt said the overall project was fine
with the exception of the tree wells.
10
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
20. Mr. Sanchez explained the tree plantings for Target and the
areas with security cameras that had to be trimmed.
21. Committee Member Bobbitt said the Acacia trees in the Target
parking lot were pretty good trees and should do fairly well.
22. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adopt Minute
Motion 2008-006 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2007-901 as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
A. Committee Member Arnold asked if the Committee Members could
receive a copy of the Village Design Guidelines. Staff replied they
would be sent to the Committee Members.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt to adjourn this meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on February 6,
2008. This meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. on January 2, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
CAROLY WALKER
Executive Secretary
11
BI#A
Ok
�CF`k OF Tt�'9w
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2008
CASE NO: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS (FLP) 2008-041
APPLICANT: THE QUARRY AT LA QUINTA
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION
OF A MAINTENANCE FACILITY
LOCATION: NORTH OF TOM FAZIO LANE AND SOUTH OF CAHUILLA PARK
ROAD WITHIN THE QUARRY AT LA QUINTA
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 Quarry is a private residential subdivision originally approved by the City Council
under Tentative Tract Map 27728 in May of 1993. The existing golf course
maintenance yard was originally approved under Plot Plan 93-504 on July 27, 1993. In
2007, the applicants submitted an application for Site Development Permit 2007-894,
proposing to construct an additional building, expand the existing golf course
maintenance yard, and update the existing landscaping. The application was reviewed
and recommended by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee during their
January 2, 2008 meeting. The Planning Commission later approved the Site
Development Permit on March 25, 2008.
PAReports - ALRC\2008\1 1-5-08\FLP 08-041 Quarry Maintenance alrc rpt.doc 1
The SDP approval included the following relevant landscape -related conditions of
approval:
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
47. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
professional, shall be reviewed by the ALRC 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, including perimeter landscaping, and
be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the
Municipal Code and the Coachella Valley Water District's Landscaping and
Irrigation Design Ordinance. 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.
Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the Planning Director.
Note: Final landscaping plans are not approved for construction until approved
and signed by the Planning Director.
49. All landscaping used for screening purposes shall consist of larger specimens
having significant foliage.
51. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a natural -looking erosion -resistant
groundcover and provide updated and enhanced screening landscaping for the
entire maintenance yard perimeter along Cahuilla Park Road and Tom Fazio
Lane. The applicant shall remove the Oleanders and replace them with native
plant species compatible with the surrounding landscaping. The applicant shall
provide staff with a revised conceptual landscaping plan for review prior to
formal submittal of the Final Landscaping Plans.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant has prepared final irrigation, landscape lighting, and planting plans for the
project (Attachment 1). These plans include landscaping along Cahuilla Park Road,
Tom Fazio Lane, and within the maintenance yard. The proposed landscaping plans are
a rehabilitation of the existing landscaping and do not involve new construction. Due to
an existing security beam along Cahuilla Park Road, landscaping will be planted so as
to not obstruct the sight line.
PAReports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-041 Quarry Maintenance alrc rpt.doc 2
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 and the Planning Commission. The
proposed plans identify a variety of water -efficient plant specimens that are consistent
with those utilized within the existing portions of the Quarry at La Quinta and the
native vegetation along Cahuilla Park Road.
The trees and shrubs approved with the preliminary plan are included in the final plans.
The trees generally include 24" box sizes, including multi -trunk Sonoran Palo Verde
specimens to be placed along the street frontage. Existing Mesquite trees will remain in
place along the perimeter streets and Shoestring Acacias will remain along the rear of
the existing maintenance building. Shrubs shown at 1 and 5 gallon sizes 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 applicant has not removed the existing Oleanders located along Tom Fazio Lane
from the landscaping plans and replaced them with desert -appropriate alternatives as
conditioned. The perimeter landscaping along Cahuilla Park Road is consistent with the
existing native landscaping along the remainder of the road, as was conditioned by the
Planning Commission. Landscaping along Tom Fazio Lane has been enhanced to
improve screening of the buildings from the nearby residences, including the use of
non -skinned California Fan Palms and a few Texas Honey Mesquites, but the Oleanders
conditioned for removal in COA#51 remain.
Compliance with Standard Code Requirements
The Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans have been reviewed by Staff, meet the
requirements of the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance, and have been previously
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-
041 for Site Development Permit 2007-894, with the condition that the plans be
revised to remove all Oleanders identified on the plans and replaced as per Condition of
Approval #51.
P:\Reports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-041 Quarry Maintenance alrc rpt.doc 3
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Site Photograph
I Site Development Permit 2007-894 Conceptual Landscaping Plans
4. ALRC Minutes from January 2, 2008
5. Final irrigation and planting plans
Prepared by:
And J. Mogensen
Pr' cipal Planner
PAReports - ALRC\2008\11-5-08\FLP 08-041 Quarry Maintenance alrc rpt.doc 4
ATTACHMENT 1
4;F1' , j
Mull
ATTACHMENT 2
J
UJ
1
r
e
yp
g
�
z
Additions and Remodel for:
The Quarry at La Quinta
Golf Course Maintenance Facility
79710 Fazio Lane North
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
ArtM1nttt
CM1vlcs W McBn4
w9x :Mkapart 9uue ul
DEbIGN vno,u+xn n>uSw
BUR.D inr nw��n+:xn
D
D
J=
1.
m
Z
W
Additions and Remodel for:
��� The Quarry at La Quinta "har, '
�1 CM1arly ' MAnh
eTIM
pi9 o9 @ Golf Course Maintenance Facility wn
„„,,,
pMeM7-,1 „l+Ava
`� 79710 Fazio Lane North o �"' ,.I, W)772-:
q eu �._ .
`^`�"u �'�'' La Quinta, Ca. 92253
ATTACHMENT 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
2. Committee Member Bobbitt had no problems with the project,
but had one question about the Hybrid Mesquite trees in the
project. Mike Horton, H.S.A. Design Group, 42575 Melanie
Place, Suite 5, Palm Desert replied he thought it was an Arizona
hybrid with a better root system and less prone to tipping in the
wind. They use this tree because the City of Palm Desert
requires it because it is a better hybrid. Committee Member
Bobbitt said he would be interested in seeing how this tree
holds up.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt said it was a very good project.
4. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion
2008-003 recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plans
2007-026 as submitted. Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 2007-894; a request of The Quarry at La
Quinta for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for an
expansion of a maintenance yard facility located on the south side of
Cahuilla Park Drive, west of south Jefferson Street.
1. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning Department.
2. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked why staff was willing to
approve a metal building for this project. Principal Planner
Mogensen said because this was a maintenance yard. Metal -
type buildings have been allowed in the past, if they are being
used for storage with full screening provided and not being used
as a break room or offices.
3. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about screening. Staff
replied that was included in the recommendations. He
suggested the ALRC might consider whether these types of
materials and the addition of the Carolina Cherries are a suitable
use to hide the building from adjacent residences.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt said he was hesitant to use the
Carolina Cherry trees and thought the Oleanders would be fine
if maintained properly. He suggested the use of an African
Sumac.
10
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the butler building would
be painted or textured. Chuck McBride, Architect, 77-980
Wildcat #2, Palm Desert, said it was a ribbed building and is
pre -painted wall panel. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they
were going to use a brown color for the trim. Mr. McBride
replied they were.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the applicant had contacted
the adjacent neighbors about this project. Mr. McBride said
they had contacted the homeowners and they found the plan
acceptable.
7. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there would be any type
of gravity ventilation to circulate the air. Mr. McBride said the
buildings would be fully insulated and there would be
ventilation, either mechanical or passive.
8. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if there was a
representative from the Homeowners Association. Mr. Steve
Beebe, 79-434 Cetrino, La Quints, introduced himself and gave
the viewpoint from the homeowners.
9. Mr. McBride commented on the landscaping on Tom Fazio Lane,
and Cahuilla Road. He said they have a large material palette
throughout the Club and did not want to introduce a brand new
palette for one particular site. Secondarily, the Cahuilla Road
landscaping can certainly be enhanced at this point as it is
about a decade old, but unless the City is interested in doing it
there is no other developer or project that really has an
opportunity to continue the additional landscaping both in the
entry direction and towards Lake Cahuilla. It is currently desert
landscaping with homes adjacent to the south. This will end up
as a landscape island by itself and that would actually be a
detriment.
10. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about safety requirements
for the solid fuel tanks. Mr. McBride explained how the fuel
tanks were constructed. They went through the normal
entitlement process with the Fire Department and, based upon
their meetings with the Fire Marshals and with the California
Regional Water Control Board, they were going to have covered
tanks which would conform to future requirements. These tanks
-would address pollution issues such as rainfall which hits the
11
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
tops of the tanks, gathers the pollutants and may exit the site.
The tanks, themselves, will not be a problem.
11. Committee Member Fitzpatrick pointed out there were a lot of
discussion points and asked if staff would be comfortable with
approval of this project and working with the applicant. Staff
replied this was one project that had not identified the perimeter
landscaping and this was drawn up prior to the City's current
landscaping standards. Principal Planner Mogensen said this
project had not identified full perimeter landscaping. The
Municipal Code requires landscaping but this project was
developed a very long time ago. At the time the landscaping
standards were not as stringent, and there were two
requirements needed to accomplish that goal which was: 1) to
bring it up to the City's current standards, and 2) to provide
adequate screening both through a wall and enhanced
landscaping.
12. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked where this application
went after this meeting. Staff said it would go to the Planning
Commission. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked if the
Committee could say they approve it in concept only or did
these other issues have to be resolved first. Planning Director
Johnson explained the approval process for this type of
application.
13. Committee Member Fitzpatrick said he would like to see a plan
that showed what they were going to do conceptually, but will
address any further issues when the final landscaping plans
come before the Committee.
14. Committee Member Bobbitt said in the past this Committee has
tried not to remove conditions, but the staff would present
these conditions to the Planning Commission. He explained
how recommendations could be made to the Planning
Commission.
15. Committee Member Fitzpatrick asked about staff's concerns
and if they were included in the Conditions of Approval. He
asked about the groundcover recommendation. Staff said the
conditions of approval met their concerns by providing the
additional landscaping and raising the wall. Committee Member
12
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
January 2, 2008
Fitzpatrick asked
recommendations.
Condition Number 4.
about the ground cover material
Staff replied that it was included in
16. Mr. McBride asked if the Committee's recommendation was to
not only enhance, or improve, the Lake Cahuilla Road, but to
upgrade the ground cover as shown in Condition Number Four.
Committee Member Bobbitt said Mr. McBride had a valid point,
and the landscaping looks very natural. He does not want to
see any "contrived" looking landscaping, but something that
looks natural. He did not want to see any planted living ground
cover and suggested the use of rock. Staff said a large caliper
rock would be needed due to erosion.
17. Principal Planner Mogensen said the project will be reviewed
with Public Works and they may include additional conditions.
When the project gets completed it will most likely look
different than it does now. Mr. McBride said street
improvements will be hundreds of nothing and then all of a
sudden there will be street improvements and then we have
many hundreds of feet of nothing again. It is really putting a
major neon sign here that says "look at this project."
18. Committee Member Fitzpatrick requested an index key be
included in future plans to make it easier for the Committee to
quickly locate information.
19. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Fitzpatrick/Arnold to adopt Minute
Motion 2008-004 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2007-894 with recommendations as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
E. Site Development Permit 2007-899; a request of East of Madison,
LLC. for review of architectural and landscape plans for the
Homeowners Association mailhouse and office located on the
northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Monroe Street within The Madison
Club.
1. Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning Department.
13
T
A.
S�
CEb OF mow
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2008
CASE NO: FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS (FLP) 2008-042
APPLICANT: R.T. HUGHES COMPANY, INC.
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: H.S.A DESIGN GROUP
BI # C
REQUEST: REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPING PLANS AND PERIMETER WALL
PLANS FOR MALAGA ESTATES; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33597
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 60 AND MADISON STREET
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The purpose of the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee's (ALRC) review of
the Final Landscape Plan and perimeter wall plans is to verify that the submitted plans
are consistent with the project's approved preliminary landscape and wall plans as
submitted in the Site Development Permit and that the plans are in compliance with
the project's landscape and wall related conditions of approval. The ALRC's review
culminates in a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the
perimeter wall plans and a recommendation of approval of the Final Landscaping Plans
to the Planning Director.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract Map 33597 was originally approved by the City Council on July 5,
2005. Site Development Permit 2007-881 was approved by the City Council on May
15, 2007. The project, as approved, includes 57 single-family residential lots,
recreational facilities and perimeter landscaping on 22 acres of land in south La Quinta
(Attachment 1). The Site Development Permit for the overall site layout, architectural
details, and preliminary landscaping plans were reviewed by the ALRC on April 4,
2007.
FLP 08-042 (ALRC Staff Report) 1
The ALRC, at its April 4, 2007 meeting, recommended approval of Site Development
Permit 2007-881 to the Planning Commission with a condition that pilasters be placed
every 50 feet along Madison Street. For reference, the minutes from the April 4, 2007
ALRC meeting have been provided (Attachment 2).
The Planning Commission, at their April 10, 2007 meeting, approved the Site
Development Permit and its associated architectural and landscaping plans with a
recommendation of a 50% turf reduction and elimination of the proposed water feature
at the corner of Avenue 60 and Madison Street. The applicant appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council, protesting Conditions of Approval #22
(Water Feature Elimination) and #26 (Turf Reduction). The City Council overturned Site
Development Permit Conditions of Approval #22 and #26; allowing the preliminary
landscaping plan to retain the water feature and proposed amount of turf. Included
below are applicable approved Conditions of Approval as they apply to the Final
Landscape Plan and wall plan.
LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECTURE, MISCELLANOUS
The following is a list of all applicable landscape and wall Conditions of Approval from
the Site Development Permit and Tentative Tract Map:
7. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (COD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant
shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
8. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no
lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public
streets.
21. The final landscaping plans for the slope adjacent to Madison Street shall
include an access easement for maintenance of slope landscaping.
22. The final landscaping plans for the slope adjacent to Madison Street shall
include noise and retaining wall designs, the wall at the Madison Street right-of-
way, and a complete landscaping plan for this area, to be submitted, reviewed
and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
23. Final landscaping plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of first
FLP 08-042 (ALRC Staff Report) 2
building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this
project, including perimeter landscaping.
27. At a minimum, bench seating to accommodate at least 6 people shall be
provided, under shade trees, in the central open space area opposite the entry.
75. Perimeter wall designs including height, color, material, design shall be approved
by the Architectural Landscape Review Committee and the Planning
Commission prior to issuance of building permit for the wall.
30. The perimeter wall shall include pilasters at a separation not exceeding 50 feet
on Madison Street, at all points where lot lines terminate on Avenue 60, and at
property corners in all other locations.
The applicant has submitted final landscaping plans and perimeter wall plans for
Malaga Estates (Attachment 3 & 4). Although typical front yard landscaping plans
were not submitted as part of this landscaping plan, the applicant has stated that
those plans are being prepared for separate submittal at a later time. The submitted
final landscaping plans identify plant species including Weeping Acacia, California
Pepper, Texas Ranger, Bougainvillea, etc. The landscape plans also identify plant
locations, and details regarding staking of trees, spacing of ground cover, and irrigation
layout. The submitted wall plans show perimeter wall location, wall height, pilaster
location, and project entry design and treatment.
ANALYSIS -
Compliance with Approved Preliminary Landscape and Wall Plans
The final landscaping plans are consistent and in conformance with the approved
preliminary landscaping plans previously reviewed by the ALRC, and approved by the
City Council (Attachment 5). The plans identify plant type and species, plant location,
irrigation details, and water usage calculations. The plans include the turf quantities
and the water feature as approved by the City Council.
The perimeter wall plans are consistent and in conformance with the approved
preliminary wall plan design previously reviewed by the ALRC, the Planning
Commission, and City Council. The plans show perimeter wall location, wall height,
pilaster location, and project entry design.
Compliance with Approved Conditions of Approval
The applicant has satisfied all conditions of approval and submitted a landscape plan
that contains a plant palette that is desert appropriate and attractive. The landscape
plans include permanent irrigation and landscaping improvements, and have been
FLP 08-042 (ALRC Staff Report) 3
revised to include a seating area and beach adjacent to the water feature. The wall
plans place pilasters every 50 feet along Avenue 60 and Madison Street, as required
by the Conditions of Approval.
Additionally, the Final Landscape Plans note that all sprinklers shall have an 18 inch
setback from all hardscape improvements. Although not shown on the plan the
applicant has stated that Condition of Approval #21 for an access easement along the
Madison Street slope is in place and is not reflected on the Landscape Plans. The
Planning Department is asking that the applicant show proof of the easement prior to
Final Landscape approval by the Planning Director.
Compliance with Standard Code Requirements
The Final Landscape Plan meets 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).
During the plan check process for these plans, the City's Public Works Department did
not mandate any modifications in regards to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) visibility standards. The Public Works
Department did identify four line of sight triangles on the landscape plans and notes
that ground cover within these areas shall be less than thirty six (36) inches in height
and that tree limbs shall be at least six (6) feet from the ground. No other comments
were received.
The proposed wall plans are incompliance with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code
standards. Maximum wall height is shown at six (6) feet, and the proposed wall
material, CMU block, is a permissible building material for perimeter wall design.
In summary, the Planning Development had no issues with the submitted plans and
found them to be in accord with the existing conditions of approval and conceptual
landscaping and wall plans submitted and approved during the Tentative Tract Map
and Site Development Permit process. The landscape plans have already been stamped
approved by both the Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee adopt a
minute motion recommending approval of the perimeter wall plans to the Planning
Commission, and recommending to the Planning Director approval of Final Landscape
Plans 2008-042 for Site Development Permit 2007-881, Malaga Estates at Coral
Mountain, as the plans are consistent with the preliminary landscape plans submitted
FLP 08-042 (ALRC Staff Report) 4
as part of Site Development Permit 2007-881, and are in compliance with the
landscape related conditions of approval adopted by Planning Commission Resolution
2007-015, and City Council Resolution 2007-049.
Prepared by:
w
ERIC CEJA
Assistant Plan er
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. ALRC Minutes (April 4, 2007)
3. Final Landscaping Plans for Malaga Estates
4. Perimeter Wall Plans for Malaga Estates
5. Preliminary Landscaping Plans for Malaga Estates
FLP 08-042 (ALRC Staff Report) 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Nt
ATTACHMENT 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
April 4, 2007
out. Condition #4 regarding the dimension of the post on the
outdoor seating area they are showing a four inch and staff is
requesting a six inch. Their design team stated the four inch is
consistent and it does help with the visibility. The last
condition is that the screen wall on their service yard being
extended. Their service yard does not stand out and is
compatible with the remainder of the building and center. They
do not understand the necessity to extend the wall.
4. Committee Member Christopher asked if staff was asking for
the extension to keep a straight line with the existing plane.
Planning Manager Les Johnson stated that in review of the
revised drawings, staff thought it is a nice design and with the
number of trips that go by this area, it would add to the look.
In regard to the transformer, staff has no objection as long as
staff has the option to be able to work with the applicant to
screen it. In regard to the posts and their desire to go to a
"New Orleans" style, staff recommends the posts be increased
to the six inch post. The applicant has been very willing to
work with staff in regard to the colors that are now consistent
with the remainder of the Center.
5. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Christopher/Bobbitt to adopt Minute
Motion 2007-008 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2007-882, as recommended and amended:
a. Condition #1: the potential placement or change in
location of the transformer box will be contingent upon
the applicant resolving IID's location and if they can't
change its location it shall be screened in some way.
b. Condition #4: The extension to the service wall shall be
angled as staff illustrated on the plan up to a maximum of
ten feet.
C. Condition #5: The posts on the outside seating area shall
be six inches.
Unanimously approved
E. Site Development Permit 2007-881; a request of R. T. Hughes Co.,
LLC for consideration of architecture and preliminary landscaping plans
for a 57 home project identified as "Malaga Estates" located at the
southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60.
0 FILENAME \p G:\WPD0CS\ALRC\4-4.07.D000
7
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
April 4, 2007
1. Planning Manager Les Johnson presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Mr.
Hughes who gave a presentation on the project and stated they
have worked very closely with Travertine Development and
Andalusia to have their landscaping plan complement their
projects. They have also worked with the adjoining projects to
resolve the easement needed for the completion of Madison
Street. The irrigation line that runs through the site will be
moved as requested by CVWD.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the water usage with the
amount of turf is a concern, but until the City revises its
standards to be stricter than those of CVWD, he would
recommend they use less turf. As the entrance is not at the
corner, he would suggest moving the water feature closer to
the corner. Mr. Hughes stated they hope to create a look
similar to the Madison Club. They have given up lots to create
a sense of open space areas. The applicant explained the
elevation problem and how they can make the retention basin
work. The applicant's engineer stated they wanted a retention
basin with a lake appearance. Staff stated it was not to move
the water feature to the corner but create a landscape feature
at the corner that makes a statement. There is no design for
either street which does make this difficult. In regard to the
water feature it was also a question as to who would benefit
from the lake as it is hidden back. This was their reason for
recommending the reduction of the lake. The applicant stated
that as you drive by you will be looking down into the lake.
3. Committee Member Christopher asked what the pad height was
at the lake level. The applicant stated there is a slope, and from
the pad to the upper water features is eight to ten feet.
Committee Member Christopher asked if there will be a six foot
privacy wall on the pads. The applicant stated no, it is a view
fence.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt suggested they offer a no -turf
option for the front landscaping for the homes. Mr. Hughes
stated they have designed the lots to be in continuity with each
other.
0 FILENAME \p GAWPDOCS\ALRC\4-4-07.D000
E..
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
April 4, 2007
5. Committee Member Christopher asked if they would have
masonry division walls between the houses. The applicant
stated yes and they have no objection to the pilasters on the
street sides, but not on the berm side.
6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the roof tiles. The
applicant stated they will be a mudded S-tile with hand
trowelled exteriors. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his
concern about the use of wood and the ability of the HOA to
maintain it. The applicant reviewed the precautions they have
in place to protect the look in their CC&Rs.
7. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded
by Committee Members Bobbitt/Christopher to adopt Minute
Motion 2007-009 recommending approval of Site Development
Permit 2007-881, as recommended and amended:
a. Delete the Condition regarding the water feature at the
corner and urge the developer reconsider the corner
landscape feature for 200 feet each direction of the
corner once the final street design has been completed.
b. Condition added: A pilaster shall be added at the
termination of the property lines and on Madison Street
every 50 feet.
Unanimously approved
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/ to adjourn this Special Meeting of the Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 2, 2007.
This meeting was adjourned at 12:04 a.m. on April 4, 2007,
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER
Executive Secretary
0 FILENAME \p GAWPOOMALM44-07,D000
0
00
z
P.W.
tz
rY
7 ON
.A
m
as,
-0 17 CD j� (on'
CL M
m
11. o 01
PL
11 fill 11 I'll f 11 1 it
aliItsI I Hit 11, IT fill q P i11 4
I (I i 7,1 is -,I `Ia, T Eli I I -Tit I [I, t I N...um
1. lifg,11,1il IT
11111 111111 111I
4111(1 1114ifflo
tilt11 1 11
ill I
0 ) -
I
MITI 1111'
..........
.......... i
vz
T1 s