Loading...
1992 02 05 DRBTd e 1981 - 1992 T T uln Ten Carat] A Regular Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California February 5 , 1992 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes of January 8, 1992 IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. 50TH AVENUE MEDIANS; a request of the City for review of 50th Avenue medians between La Quinta Evacuation Channel and Park Avenue. B. TRACT 22982; a request of Williams Development Company for review of new/revised architectural elevations for dwelling units in Cactus Flower. C. TRACT 24517; a request of Williams Development for review of new/revised architectural elevations for dwelling units in Rancho Ocotillo. D. PLOT PLAN 91-473; DESERT HOSPITAL; a request of Desert Hospital, El Mirador Medical Complex & Birtcher to permit a three story medicaPoffice complex on a portion of a 65.4 acre site located on the east side of Washington Street north of 47th Avenue. V. OTHER VI. ADJOURNMENT 001, January 8, 1992 I. II III IV MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Llewellyn brought the meeting to order at 5:33 P.M. and Boardmember Curtis led the flag salute. Chairman Llewellyn asked for a roll call. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, Paul Anderson, John Walling, John Curtis, Fred Rice, Planning Commission Representative Kay Ladner, and Chairman Ted Llewellyn. Absent: None CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Llewellyn asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 4, 1991. Boardmember Llewellyn moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Boardmember Walling seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION A. LA�UINTA CITY HALL PROJECT; a request of the City for review of landscaping and irrigation plans for the City Hall project. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Boardmember Harbison expressed his disappointment that no local landscape architect was selected to do the project. The plans submitted were typical of what someone unfamiliar with the desert environment would submit. He stated the plans called for high maintenance. The plants were somewhat low water usage, although only a few could handle the extreme weather ranges. The design style was incompatible with what the City represents and requires of developers. The perimeter landscaping needs to have the amount of lawn reduced (especially near the curbs) to only where the public traffic would be. This should be replaced with ground cover. The density of the shrub planting is extremely high. The planting needs to be relaxed to allow the DRBM1/8 Design Review Board Minutes January 8, 1992 plants room to spread and take form. The desert character is sparser on the perimeter and lush green up close to the buildings. Annual color use should be minimal and used only for accent. The elevated pots with annual color required too much maintenance. The deciduous plants (i.e., vines) should be replaced as they will go bare in the winter when the City should try to present an attractive face. If not replaced totally, they should be mixed with some evergreen plants. Discussion followed among the Boardmembers relative to the above statements. All members were in agreement and expressed their disapproval of the plans. 4. It was noted that the Civic Center site is one of the coldest spots in La Quinta and that the bougainvillea proposed would freeze. Nearby homeowners have verified this fact. The 60" box Smoketree was felt to be larger than needed or optimum for a native type tree and excessively expensive. Boardmember Curtis pointed out that the water source should be shown as originating on Tampico not Washington Street. Following additional discussion relative to the range in temperatures throughout the Cove area and plants that are able to handle this type of weather, it was moved by Chairman Llewellyn and seconded by Planning Commission Representative Ladner to recommend to the City Council denial of the plans and ask that the architects meet with the Board in order to determine a plant pallet and design that would be compatible with our desert environment. It was noted that if the plans were deleted from the City Hall contract, they could be redesigned. Unanimously approved. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairman Llewellyn and seconded by Boardmember Walling to adjourn to a. regular meeting of the Design Review Board on February 5, 1992, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 5:58 P.M., January 8,1992. DRBM1/8 I , L - 0oL, MINZTT ES PLANNING COMMISSION/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JOINT MEETING CITY OF LA QUINTA A special meeting held at the La Quints, City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quints, California January 28, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. A. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Boardmember Rice. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Planning Director Jerry Herman requested the roll. Present: Boardmembers Anderson, Curtis, Rice and Walling. Absent: Boardmembers Llewellyn and Harbison. Boardmember Anderson moved to excuse Boardmembers Llewllyn and Harbison. Boardmember Walling seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Associate Planner Greg Trousdell. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Civic Center Landscaping; a request of the City for review of the landscaping plans as submitted by Gruen Associates. PCMIN2-28J 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report and introduced Mr. Maris Peika and other members of Gruen Associates. 2. Mr. Maris Peika, Gruen Associates, gave a presentation of the Civic Center landscaping and how it came to be. 3. Mr. Rick Abelson, Landscaping Architects with Gruen Associates, described the plants to be used. 4. Commissioner Ladner stated that she appreciated the explanation the consultant had given. 1 Joint Planning Commission/ Design Review Board Minutes January 28, 1992 PCMIN2-28J Boardmember Rice stated his concern regarding this location being the coldest site in the City and whether these plants will be able to tolerate this weather. He further stated his concern for the drainage. Mr. Abelson addressed Boardmember Rice's concern stating that special care is being taken to be sure all the plants are the heartiest species possible as well as planted in the best environment to assure their survival. Commissioner Ellson asked if the bougainvillea came in different colors and if the color scheme for the Civic Center building had been determined. Mr. Peika stated the exterior would be a white stucco with the traditional red clay roof. A dusty green color for the window frames with a dusty grey/green for the wrought iron with a reddish clay tile for a paving material. The interior will be in subtle shades of the same. Boardmember Walling stated he felt the color scheme was very compatible but was still concerned that the plants would not be able to tolerate the weather. Mr. Abelson stated that if the Commission and Board was still concerned about the plants being able to tolerate the weather, they would place several of the plants on the site and see how they handle the weather while construction is taking place. Mr. Samuel Kim, Landscape Architect for Gruen Associates, stated they were working with the nursery's to be sure the plants would be hearty enough to tolerate the weather. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the high maintenance of these plants. Discussion followed relative to the amount of maintenance that would be required. 10. Commissioner Ladner asked about the amount of lawn and annual color. Discussion followed as to what is proposed and possible alternatives. 11. Chairman Barrows explained her concern for the amount of lawn next to the curb. City Engineer Frank Reynolds stated that the City had come to the conclusion that from the cost and maintenance of ground cover, it was becoming apparent that grass was more economical. The problem was with overspray and he felt this could be controlled. 12. Mr. Abelson stated the reason the went with so much grass was because they envisioned the area being utilized by people. Boardmember Walling asked if the consultants had considered a mulch, rock, or non -plant materials for the street boarder. Discussion followed relative to different types of materials to be used. n `J O v. mimsnwnnwnmw- �:nsim®rwet�i Joint Planning Commission/ Design Review Board Minutes January 28, 1992 13. Discussion followed regrading the different variety of plants. 14. There being no further discussion, Boardmember Anderson moved to accept the landscape plan as submitted Boardmember Rice seconded the motion. Chairman Barrows accepted the motion for the Planning Commission and it carried unanimously by both the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. IV. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Chairman Barrows and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adjourn this special meeting of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission. This joint meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission and Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:20 P.M., January 28, 1992. PCMIN2-28J 7. a..: 00C DATE: PROJECT: REQUEST: APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FEBRUARY 5, 1992 50TH AVENUE MEDIANS APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR CENTER MEDIANS CITY OF LA QUINTA TKD ASSOCIATES 50TH AVENUE BETWEEN LA QUINTA EVACUATION CHANNEL AND PARK AVENUE At the request of the City, TKD Associates has prepared preliminary plans for the above described medians which presently exist. The plants proposed for use in the center medians are low water users while being attractive desert types plants. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the submitted plans. Any comments you have will be taken into consideration, prior to formal working drawings being prepared. Attachments: 1. Landscaping plans DRBST.022 1 1 A 00 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992 APPLICANT: WILLIAMS COMPANY ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN, FULLER & ASSOCIATES PROJECT: REVIEW OF TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS FOR TRACT 24208 (CACTUS FLOWER EXTENSION) LOCATION: EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD A QUARTER OF A MILE SOUTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE. BACKGROUND: Tract 24208 (Cactus Flower Extension) is located just south of Tract 22982, the original Cactus Flower project. Originally five, and at a later stage an additional unit were approved for Cactus Flower and Cactus flower Extension. Since then all units in Cactus Flower (Tract 24208) have been completed. The applicant has now proposed two new unit designs for Cactus Flower Extension. The following table summarizes details of the units already approved and the proposed units: APPROVED UNITS Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 House S . Footage 1340 1612 1628 1870 2057 2328 Garage S . Footage 641 687 620 614 594 628 # Different 3 3 Elevations 3 3 3 3 # Bedrooms 3 3 4 4 4 4 # Family Rooms 0 1 1 1 1 1 # Car Garages 3 3 3 3 3 3 STAFFRPT.076/CS '1- c PROPOSED UNITS Plan 7 Plan 8 House Sq. Footage 1805 1731 Garage Sq. Footage 647 620 # Different Elevations 3 3 # Bedrooms 3 4 # Family Rooms 1 1 # Car Garages 3 3 ANALYSIS: 1. The elevations of Plans 7 & 8 exhibit a similar architectural style as the units already approved. 2. The applicant proposes to use the same color materials for Units 7 & 8 as were used for Units 1-6. These are desert colors and were previously approved. 3. Sufficient detailing has been shown on all four sides of Units 7 & 8. 4. Both Units 7 & 8 have large windows on the rear elevations. Staff therefore recommends that a trellis be added to the rear side of these units where the rear of the unit faces west. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion recommend approval of Units 7 & 8 for Tract 24208 on conditions that a trellis be added to the rear elevations of both units when the rear of the unit faces west. Attachments: 1. Locality plan 2. Tract Map showing existing 3. Floor plans & elevation for units Units 7 & 8, Tract 24208 STAFFRPT.076/CS -2- r W W W N N N a a a 71 e'a'1 d'V1S 9N/ZY79 2 It J 7 ATTACHMENT No. 2 N. � o a - d a x W :O Alop it -7 OD in L m w ,a' a I ss 1Oi l is (lm P / 01.1 ATTACHMENT No. 3 EXAMPLES OF HOUSE DESIGNS AND ELEVATIONS 01� yyNq tl �. � e•_t ' ••� xintiaEi Sf1LTA _,,,_= P �wvapo swrrttw au ra V •6> r V t o� Kp/ IAc. E 1 � � � � �' -• III i 11 V� i 'aslll Y'�. alb :C: _ Owg:, J W i c --4 Ol/ A N •• vu ra m v NOLLVA3M NVOn 9� 0 1 r UDOMQRM A W AMIV4n3Ud • � r ••� Vnano n e NOLLVA313 t z� uaAao�a snuv� L NV _ .n.aw� cimnv, iiLL —. i't i i A _ C rl .ix ''-yy .3 JE uj I - o i i � it > o j F it a J LL 14. .• —� 2 7 �1' .. r� Y • ot Q p t 3 ��� iAl tL. .iie Z P 1 12 F ��,� nit eAp+.w.w+ �1 w nea�mnuew —vawno n — _ 9._ --- NOLLV/1313 --------- I — _� .u� ' aiva�i snLx� NV1d M r _ tiFJIF7�' d Ax.am s�vrr.w\ au .. — •'i t I� f El Ell I s 7 P' F Y3 ® Q s� 0El 1 p it :! � 1 lb � •, ,� �i a 0 1 i . g ----� � 7 M_� § a \ : w § § � .¥, §� 6 k&Qm@| !. NV'ld Q Y L Y� f E i s} tLi o M In SS a rcl 0jr -vilaw r, - - --- - -- NVId aoold WOW 110"R ,: m NVId v J, e> g V c Ra, Kf V�� ___ ) \ , \ 7C IIV G13 e NV"la § NOLLVA313 8 NV ld qyy! I, Y t ;SoY �fY: SY wr+�w�•+••+r w na.mm uw ll it I a z S Jul Fu AVVN1wr1Jus v1mr* vl 1CiM0'Id MOND ex Oo � a e NOLLVA313 8 NVId o-e A � l}06 iL 0 Y S i ire !4 •il .. i�l ea I� %. �.0 �. N V 0 2.- q.t.R,�.,c. zy :i4 >f,3's !i Nr, C • 1�"h< i z a 9 NOLLVA313 8 NVId _ e;,s ,ilk i r� a r000rup= al pr)AMIrjrmw Yam n x3naota sru�✓� ,w.nwo a�vr*v au 1 } p t" ,v i leas Ifi,r ��. NOI1YA313 8 Ntlld i s N 14 IRS =- 'j, 1.0 (, 02 7 BI #C STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992 PROJECT: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR 2 NEW UNITS & ONE AMENDED UNIT FOR TRACT 24517 & TRACT 25290 (RANCHO OCOTILLO) APPLICANT: WILLIAMS COMPANY ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN, FULLER & ASSOCIATES LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET BACKGROUND 1. Tract 24517 & Tract 25290 together form a 122 single family residential subdivision on a 37 acre site located in the northern area of La Quinta. PROPOSAL The applicant has submitted two new units (Unit 5 & 6). In addition Unit #4 has been resubmitted with minor changes including internal changes to the two bathrooms and the removal of a court yard wall around the front entry area. The following gable shows the new units in comparison to the original 4 units: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 # Sq. Footage 2164 2300 2334 1951 1737 1848 # Stories 1 1 1 1 1 1 # Different 3 Elevations 3 3 3 3 3 # Bedrooms 4 4 4 3 3 4 # Bathrooms 2-1/2 2 2-1/2 2 2 2 # Family Rooms 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Gar 3 3 3 STAFFRPT.075/CS -1- 7, i.k)6 O2C STAFF COMMENTS 1. Changes to Unit #4 are minor and will not alter the overall image of this unit. The new units have an architectural style in keeping with the existing five units. 2. The rear and side elevations of the new units includes detailing around windows on all sides. 3. These units will utilize the same desert color scheme as was approved for the other four units. 4. The rear sides of these units have large windows. Staff therefore recommends that the applicant be required to build a trellis on the rear sides of both Units #5 & 6 where the rear side faces west. RECOMMENDATION By Minute Motion recommend approval of changes to Unit #4 and approval of new Units #5 & 6 for TR 24517 and TR 25290 with a condition that a trellis be built on the rear side of these units where the rear side faces west. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tract Map showing existing units 3. Proposed Floor Plan & elevations for Unit #4,, 5 & 6 STAFFRPT.075/CS -2- 3 �` ATTAHMENT No. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LA OUINTA %N:f W :•::•F'ry Q W 3ri±.}}• a a � a a W < Z O < O MLES AVENUE ZI //p = gypgnp�ryql/ a 3 LOCATION MAP CASE Na INDIO ORT SCALE; NTS TT 24517 t ATTACHMENT No. 2 — �- FRED WARING DRIVE J 11 SECTION LINE J J �� LOT "H" 9g5.59 N 89' 33'3Z'E 2654.92 (2654.81" �y LOT G 331.87 kka (331.85) J 1.01 28 27 / 4 88 Q v ss 29 {°99'ty"E 26 Rol 13 e7 35.29' l:J 90 30 0 012 Ond��l 91 .-. 31 � r 18 O 32 23 J 19 \ 10 c^o It 33 0a 20 8 .� N 34 O a0 MM g � " 33 �'�'f /A/ 0 LOT "r OEL q (O ` � 00 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 61It �) 36 N N O W PAL M_ A DR LOT 41 53 52 51 50 49 \ 62 N 0ID 54 v0 �, ) C 63 N 37 40 0 I�nn J 55 p 64 � 38 () 39 56 57 58 59 60 N 65 ~O I ~ 0 .- Q J 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 J p p Q 66 z 76 c o�iIr osAoq 67 _ SEE DETAIL ' 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 / \ / 68 331.79 1GYo.9Fo" 95LSG' %95.33'i �\ //(331.77) 993.36' C GED /3Z7.14'C/3Z7./0') \ � iEDRAS N 89` 34.36" E ' 2-654.28' (2654.21') '� \ fD. / �/' 7CO ,eGE. ZGGG2 d N PER. G7/4� 4 M_ .� Q UNITS AI.,F�4(J\� G�`,ISi�Ucr�p c bo i M N 0" E 2653.64 (2653,GJ1) ATTACHMENT No. 3 EXAMPLES OF HOUSE DESIGNS AND ELEVATIONS 1). A., j 3 -- ..,__. L�� D N = _ v CL` 1 ��u',c •��� s. _ ..III _ fi}T ff—�f �` rj �. d yin � •. a QQ �x1 2 It QQ f r i a~ E � Ir is PLAN 4 "wAMS OEVELOPMEW CMP. RANCHO OCOTILLO FLOOR PLAN LA OUINTA PRE LIMN I nol for co,,I vcb, mm H O 2 w PLAN 4 N mwAYS DEWLMWNT Caro. RANCHO OCOTILLO Fultaf i,)] y ELEVATIONS PRELIMINARY no! tw colr^cnol In O r ff x1.7 _s O ' iIJS _• Da jam If Z SERVICE JSj ,E. a BATH 1 I � A a 1 -- ♦a8 �r r T y ee� PLAN S THE WILLIAMS COMPANY �7i�ir��u�� ) F. ; RANCHO OCOTILLO fiJ((iif ofi FLOOR PLAN LA OUINTA 0 :iJly/'iw' 1 �3 PRELIMINARY nol for conswction i I i � ,.r•� � 7. 1� ti 8 I I PLAN 5 ELEVATION A WIWAMS DEVELOPMENT CORP. RANCHO OCOTILLO LA QUINTA tafft:uvaI ? I raU:xu r`JJ:�vsJ�:.TJ 03 7 m m > 30 T N r Lo E r3 ll Ll F] T'- )VA PLAN 5 VEALOPMENT CO RANCHO OCOTILLO LA OUINTA ELEVATION A oil 11 60 r > i z 10, fry z > T 3— I p PLAN 5 MRLAYSpEVEIOVMENTtoaE. RANCHO OCOTILLO �Ju9f SE ELEVATION B LA OUINTA c r m ,n O 0 0 m m rl rn rT m < A M pZ m < WLLJAMS VEnLOMW CORP. PLAN 5 OCOTILLO LA OLMNTA V J!ELEV:AAT=ION EB RANCHO OC P PRELIM R' oil 0 On r tit 7; PL I CD PLAN 5 ELEVATION 1 4-1 DEVELOPMENT CORP. RANCHO OCOTILLO fug-jr a c LA OL4NTA ELIMINARY ncA 10f CdKd�tDu" m (` 71 IU7f7]7] _ LJ..W O m � I �I � at o #z;� 7 m' � e� I _— �� i 1 � Fy a i Jig. I. l PLAN 5 �1 r RANCHO OCOTILLOLA WNTA rd(( S{ i- ELEVATION C I, OL PRELIMINARY W W Ca tW0on T •. i tic is -�SEnYICE ,L i p } MTM -{ PLAN G THE WILlIAMS COMPANY 0Whi in t RANCHO OCOTILLO fi-JUvjt , + FLOOR PLAN LA OUINTA Al 3,,;iri i PRELIMINARY not IM Wnliii 4k s.1 iT � } o1/7 v iK ol i I a R l� Y R � � E —�� s: 3.t • e r� �hr I I i � sect I 1 e 1 I' 1 .• !, S t ._ PLAN 6 wauArs o[vEeo►r[rrr Cow. t o RANCHO OCOTILLO 'l ELE4ATION A LA OLRNTA 044 PRELIMINARY +rot lop consbucbon IZ -L "tom I�{. • l: M1 fu` I El' 1 ) Lo' PLAN 6 kil- WILUAMS DEVELOPMEW C f ; ; RANCHO OCOTILLO n} • y - LA OtANTA i�'%:i�J^,i<IC -- ELEVATION A iS,•-" v 4 PRELIMINARY not IN Co bucbon 5 t•—e T f '1 iil it'll :1� 130, `�1 t` Pic I t n. r In I i 1j ♦: �x 'AIW ` `} PLAN 6 wiuiAws KY w w caw. ON >, f.u' ti RANCHO OCOTILLO rl_r- _ f LA CURVTA w '' ELEVATIB r�3 PREUMiNARY nol for construtlbn r_ ,c i: r 1 1,1' �• t 3a: •� � ' M A11 y; •:3i t i / 3 :gig: WRWIYS DEWLOi W car. PLAN 6 A ! jFA RANCHO OCOTILLO " ELEVATION B LA OUINTA i:i aJJi+.,, Q PRELIMINARY not br tonsbvction 4` I :it to 0 Ni 84 IV 0 0 z m m z < lie 7M Ea In- L Nm 20 -Ali a 01 PLAN 6 111111-1.mms Mylllolr w CORP. RANCHO OCOTILLO LA OLRNTA c ELEVATION PRELIMINARY not to, cvnstn,cllo, > Fl �; r D L; 1• r n� i` i r m n - 1 I n m r � - IZ \ I f1'TTT'll�'A1 . i 1 i Iit r I — PLAN 6 MILLIAMSKnLOVMENTCOR. i I oilr:!��JSII r"== RANCHO OCOTILLO FSIu;S� .✓ r LA OIANTA ♦ n u� -"" ELEVATION C PREIJMINARV ml /o, Co twctlon STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-473; DESERT HOSPITAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27399 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27031 (MINOR CHANGE) APPLICANT: DESERT HOSPITAL, EL MIRADOR MEDICAL COMPLEX & BIRTCHER REQUEST: A PLOT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO PERMIT A THREE STORY MEDICAL/OFFICE COMPLEX (82,000 SQUARE FEET/PHASE I) ON A PORTION OF A 65.4 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET NORTH OF 47TH AVENUE. A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 19 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS. A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH ALLOWED THE SUBDIVISION OF 65.4 ACRES INTO 8 LOTS (7 DEVELOPABLE LOTS). GENERAL LOCATION: AVENUE/HIGHLAND INPALMS STREETGTON NOR EAST SIDE OF DRIVE, AIGNALIZED INTERSECTION). LARGER DRIVE AND LOCATION: NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111,lEAST OF WASHINGTONSTH AVENUE, SOUTH OF OTREET,vAND WEST OF THE FUTURE ADAMS STREET. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: C-P-S/VACANT & SIMON MOTORS (ACROSS SIMON DRIVE) SOUTH: R-1/SINGLE FAMILY, LAKE LA QUINTA, VACANT EAST: C-P-S/ PROPOSED REGIONAL MALL SITE (ACROSS ADAMSSTREET) WEST: R-1 RESIDENTIAL/SINGLEE FAMILY HOMES (ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET) LAND AREA: 65.4 ACRES (19 ACRES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT) BUILDING AREA: 82,000 SQUARE FEET (PHASE I) - MEDICAL CENTER DRBST. 010 1 BACKGROUND: In September and December of last year, the City reviewed the development plans of Desert Hospital for their proposed out -patient facility on the west side of Washington Street, south of Highland Palms/47th Avenue. The proposed medical facility was not permitted as the zoning was not allowed to change to office/medical and related services from R-1 Single Family Residential. The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the project on this site. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed 19 acre site is a portion of a 65.4 acre property. The Desert Hospital Group is in escrow on the 19 acre property contingent on the approval of this development plan. The remaining acres has frontage along Washington Street, Simon Drive, and Highway 111. The Desert Hospital site has 1,000 feet of frontage along Washington Street and is 705 feet on 47th Avenue. The parcel(s) are vacant at this time. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 59 feet. The site is partially improved with new street improvements along Washington Street, but the site does not have curb, gutter or sidewalk improvements except on 47th Avenue. A raised median island exists on the west side of Washington Street and it was installed by the City in 1989. SITE DESIGN: The proposed Phase I three story medical building has been positioned in the center of the lot with proposed parking encircling the building. The plan has been designed to meet the requirements of the Washington Street Specific Plan originally adopted by the City in 1989 and amended in 1991. Access driveways have been positioned to permit easy access to and from the site and all parking areas are conveniently placed to assist patron usage. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING: The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately 20 feet, and a meandering sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. The sidewalk along Washington Street, a major arterial, is eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. A concept landscape plan was submitted in December, 1991, and the plan is attached. The preliminary concept is too rough to comment on but later on in this report, a recommendation has been drafted concerning the matter. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The three story building which is the same design as previously proposed, is 160 feet from Washington Street and is designed to allow easy access from the abutting parking lot areas into the first floor common waiting area. The proposed Spanish style design motif is indicative of this region (e.g. , the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.) . Preliminary discussions with the architect have indicated the building will be painted white and include green and yellow accent tiles. A covered arcade is proposed for the perimeter of the building around the first floor and the architect has included textured paved areas to define the public DRBST.010 J I�JU 051 spaces. Planters are also interspersed along the pedestrian areas to add additional character to the entry into the proposed facility. The proposed building meets the design parameters of the City. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The landscape program for Washington Street should include a variation of planting materials, such as Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The material listed in the specific plan should be utilized. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watts). 2. The proposed retention areas on -site should be landscaped with materials which will support growth even though they are accepting water run-off from paved surfaces. 3. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk should be installed along Washington Street along the frontage of the site. If the sidewalk is to be located on a portion of private property an on -site easement shall be offered. Lawn should not be used between the street curbs and meandering sidewalk except in those areas where it can be kept five feet from the curb, planting adjacent to curb should utilize emitter irrigation. The proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210. The height of the light poles should not exceed 20 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should try to reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 5. Public art pieces should be installed on the property along Washington Street at each of the project entries. The primary art feature should be located at the Washington Street access point. 6. Public easements should be offered to the City for the intersections of Washington Street/47th Avenue and Washington Street/Via El Mirador to permit the City the option of placing public art objects on these corners in the future, in case the property does not opt to install art objects in these locations per the City's Art in Public Places Ordinance. 7. All future buildings will be subject to further study by the Design Review Board through Plot Plan applications. 8. The Applicant should examine covered parking spaces for 10 percent of the proposed on -site parking spaces. The covered trellises should be either wood or metal and spaces should be interspersed throughout the site. 9. All trash and loading area facilities should be located so that they cannot be seen from any public thoroughfare. The areas should be screened by using masonry wall enclosures and landscaping. DRBST.010 05, L 10. All windows on the second and third floor should be recessed into the building envelope (approximately 6 inches) and sunshade canopies should be used to reduce the sun exposure on the areas which are susceptible to mid -afternoon heating. 11. Prior to preparation of final landscaping/irrigation plans, preliminary landscaping plans should be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. 12. Landscape design, planting, and screening shall comply with the specific plan approval and applicable City codes. 13. A master sign program should be reviewed/approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of any permits for permanent signs at this location. 14. Design measures should be examined to minimize the exposure of the proposed parking lot(s) as they relate to Washington Street, a public thoroughfare. The landscape plan submittal should include provisions for both planter hedges and masonry screen walls along the property frontage. 15. Decorative paved entryways should be included into the project design to enhance the development. The specific plan standards should be met. 16. All final working drawings should be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plans should include but not be limited to site, grading, building, landscaping, irrigation, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, and utility plans. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the plans in light of the above Staff comments. Should the Design Review Board feel revisions are needed, conditions requiring review by the Staff or Design Review Board before submission to the Building and Safety Department can be imposed or revisions can be required prior to Planning Commission action on this request. Attachments: Location Map Vicinity Map/Parcel Map Large Development Plans Excerpts from the Washington Street Specific Plan HDR Landscape Development Concept text Space inventory summary DRBST. 010 05, X W F- Z O U J Q U O J z O a U O J F� U W 00) O w a W Ix ,NOT TO SCALEwwm CWoASnHINGTONCIAL I -USE CENTER SQUARE � LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA LLL N Tiff CITY OF IA 9UIN/A, N► TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27300'£ D£C£MB£R, 1991 rth (AAL (A YVI-'A � ii� ItiM' l� 1/ 05,: HIS a YFageEE o ° 2 y gJ3oy _ c Z) i0m nyyu $0c 3 c s P igBOb �3no P� `emu. D m P a D u E mm o= 3 «« 2 c o c o c a 2 U n gi Pv 3 3 c p (Y m° c.2 n U S C. P o n A L ESgEbntm �o «A� `o ' =E `-$moYu : caps a5.g$ ` 000YEE nc s Edo= «g S Enc m u o b _ guru°; uEcE-8 u Ss32 x 3 2 =-ins o- o-'o- Eno ri d v sgn w n a� = e_ :g 3� �00 F FE b i os -n-`o bge 5 UO IF an F=E ° J 5 E o f n g o . € ¢¢ g g� `c E c c 5 . � O O c6m oo :o d 6„3;n �88 E3-6t n _ ctdcSol 15 pO- �-s $0 o n Uo a`2 E:g a to F sm ggs �so ° sow 0$0 Em �`= 42 �o ��c� v e. �t m� gog c0c�E? c ba 3 a a _ w C. 3�Q s s N N a¢ � 3 3 i Bigg�a o °Fq`C ��o ss C ¢S y D y bb Y ££ "p� 4 = 04 nF ,m`g�t� OE U o1s 5 ag$�' �7 os aXo�' E �c�d EESga is 2 E L g `32 o �x 0 �a�Ya 1.2 g c E°oo Em m o` nn E�o sT a L m o o o m�s-ems Eoa o$s am8 k22 W N SNOV913S 9NINaVd Z-AI 32 now V 9Niaiin9 1VJIdAl W c M. Q Z ca JZ =C Onu F Q VI <U ZUQ yZ 2s Q0O 3U- 2E2 g t -pill! so��° os €p E @ y g� Et� � g gt Pm ° gc S aSZ t boR "� gs;"fit o 8g 521E 4 mc43- x u v 9mm 3 ° c ° U Y $j cc ocngso S 8 o gg8 Sg p3 cUo a C C m d O �. 8¢ 0 pQ ;msg EM.ku BB B @@g aag RigS �QmS afo u gm m°�c °ovmmcn5 kbS o$ ? $ s8$'s x;EBo= 0 0 a e m a u? a EY €iEmagE o0g2 co �$E8 _0o13z2°8gn ^' s8a£zaS€ g 5Eto 08, scogo E° gp°g a gcgBb - il g n" c $$g=b° ? o8 Q3mgnEb°moO°ngQpQm�sma � �mS o mb m° Cc 8N m"m on CE°cgC ffi° J b a mz �c 2E oo�£ -AA a o 6m o g S c 2 E o= U c c i ffi p 9 E tr g b o ; m_£ i o 3 o S; ftg °oz =bs $mE Eiffi F�8� om€YFEx ga gas �uu6 o° « so d v u m a 5 F 0 y� e :g r � 3� mo m3W i 33VdS ■NIa� w T-n nn9i ( § � � q \ � \/ o 'i � \\ * i I z-0 on 2 }\ \o � . � B ){ ,! f } �� ® k » k�k ||| k f\ !| /{ t$2 �|� k� {� ! k` | ,|| `;2 ! 2 /!| ! 0 VIE- /ago 7777k\ \ao.a , ; 7! , #| $f| t |\ kkk i ! _ ||! |/ $, no \ � ��` 45 i m Est mFoEE bs"F°g€g � fl egg g ? 8�E $g $E$oE�EaBq�a s` ;a K. 'matot opp E2@x@g s E goo ��- $- ��o°m a E�o oo$ m��ubo� s•o so 32 o= m85 rdY � `S- �E E�O1 E28 0ZI x m'5 �2'aYo�m B b o°g o�o� 8E`3$Y000`¢g=€€'myyd-oc o o olm8� E°a Do aoT8�2X� 3sE g a A �Rpp 2� a°m2pp. i u p o 6 - u s w a a O O O _ 3 " :,: 06r Eg = gim Etag ill i cgs ° m§ @f-9E g� ov gmRmO° O 00 SO00a�$� a VG ac s�t 8o E1S $T�'Y So 9 m € s 8 o S9%°$ .a= a cgs a €E� aago 8 at ° 8 a s um€o02 U ri a Eai px�' ; p°X. cv 'o_ ° S o n���� ° Sc- �$o c a� 5 a?oDuo g5d o 6E$c E o MD 2. as $u B o s `° c P L O0 O 1'� C O U C y i 'w E N O � U t l� O t2 N r • g 3: Q ® ' 1 O F m a T S1N3W3211 038 JNWINIS 17-AI 32 IDIJ 30VdS 9NDIM 130 gOwl W c M� ¢w �U �Na y�Z =c Zoo O:Q VI Q U Zcd WN D Q 20 30- a n O O z O61.^ ■NI?1 k@NV w aNV ■ma o )io 21s m 3anvid |Lua <z | k !! /i ° z/ \ � \�\©---�-&�/ ODI z INX q »a - # \ \! \ ® --- - !|, � !., !|) ) )0 � ,c £g | \ \ }$ f ƒ 20 \) !§ k)|{ !� § ,f�f! !! !� `IANS / i \E| f| |! �0_#! I . [ - •! |`�°! !k i )»| ¢ ;:| !'a! ! § jB/!0 k) .T |! 0! , !r E. # E )0/: ZZ |«i ik !! �,� )!Lg ~ ! !! |� ° ` ` _ �.! ; :|-|` 2§ )la �IHQ*do co® )| /£k75 !I §K }� g$lf g�' 030 g 453°o g$8 ES E ism 0�00�0 $ npp �_g 0 0 uQE° pp yyyiyyy 3� 0 I $r 0E 01 m�spg� sSE�s �-t a m m 73 $Ni ji mbc 2 t�. mca cb �g'o1 m v _ p E oa Tvi 2 E o° c o b 1 @ c 'o 1 Z m - S o� Q d@ o m e Ov D 0 0 t c Y c c° m e o $Rq s c L E 3 p 3 p[ m N 2 2 O D O 3 'C p (°l C U U F 1 2 Q E po O C p U a EEs 540a ti °29 S.E ��9g0$ 3� b;Es DESK °z3°E`3° 4pt�°p� a oWpm Hz°macEn$D� 3m�o O;Ec E;6OU Q3 me it n£= 0 I �S 9om @ng- 24 ffio $°$u mp-m 5�'yy°� b ag S mo o36n Qmao'o yg� v$� pQoaot°p �' U E C U O O'2' O -0N q ° C O G J c U Y LLm g m 0 �° Q nQ O f L m 6 O O p U �5 '� � V m z �kffi edolt n' n>pE Q, bsj Emv < -zp$ m pc oo �n mgb$m °gpg1 p d 3 .9 cB 0 °br3EEni0 p yyEE uyy p n.np n._ U2�� ➢ t E b° E 2 nom �B�E ffiffi :bn m`uc WE �s ��SE- p03 p E E= u y - #$no sio6� E ��Ou �sbx aH f m� e W p O � �' m e •_S 9 - N 0 i 3 06JVl , ....�.�:..W�_..�.:......:�.. AM k;- |222 +|z Sokk k kk .2a ` 0&{ Jw',� W\(/ _1[ WASHINGTON S COMMERCIAL MULTI -USE LA 9UINTA, CALIFORNIA BIRTCHER 72120 Manufacturing Rd., Suite K Thousand Palms, CA M76 Tel: 619 343-2330 Fox: 619 343- 00o ng HIGHWAY 111 / WASHINGTON & ADAMS STREETS LANDSCAPE 0001 SIMON DRIVE / AVENUE 47 LANDSCAPE •oe AVENUE 47 LANDSCAPE Lm MAJOR CORNER LANDSCAPE PEDESTRIAN SEATING AREA LM LANDSCAPE MAIN ENTRY 1®3 SECONDARY ENTRY , F 2 Ill Emplomm B I SOURCE: Landscape Concept Plan, Ronald Gregory Assoclates, February 11, 1"1. 0oE- N ;. w d d Z J N wo N Z W W I Q O a m LL u W > O U 0 O ¢ u 3 r' o d a W W J Y ? O Q u a O a = = W i u a o a > W a l u m r, N 2 u z ¢ m r• z u Q M O t rJ Z C J 6 0 0 J LL UE R OO M1 Z U C` so a N � Q � � 3�Q W 0 2 ' n i W ; _ F 6 s W O Table VI-1 Proposed Plant Palette Botanical Name Cemnwn Nams ske Palms: Chomaerops Humlib Phoenix Doctyllfera Trees: Chllopsis Linearts Brachychiton Populneus Jacaranda AcuBlolla Prosopsis Chllensis Rhus Lancea Schlnus Molls Z91.R" Bougainvillea 'La Jolla' Coesolpinla Gllllesil Coesalpinla Pulchenima Cassia Arlemisioldes Cassio Wllizenll Dodonea V.'Purpuraea' Encella Farinosa Lanea Trldentata Leucophyllum F. 'Green Cloud' Nerium Oleander'PetBe PInl( Pennisetum S. 'Cupreum' Salvia Greggli Caefl Echinocactus Grusonil Fououterla Splendens Hesperaloe Parvillora Yucca Pendula EsPall6r4: Bougainvillea San Diego Red' Gelsemium Sempervirem Grewia Cahn Groundcover: Annual Color Boccharb P. 'Centennial' Dalea Greggll Lantana C. 'Dwarf YeBOW Palm Springs Gold Fines Verbena P. 'Starfire' Mediterranean Fan Palm Dale Palm Desert Willow Bottle Tree Jacaranda Chilean MescluBe African Sumac Califomlo Pepper Clumping Bougainvillea Mexican Bird of Paradise Red Bird of Paradise Feathery Cassia Shrubby Senna Hopseed Bush Brittle Bush Creosote Bush Texas Ranger Dwarf Oleander Purple Fountain Grass Sage Golden Barrel Cactus Oco8110 Red Yucca Soft Leaf Yucca Bougainvillea Carolina Jessamine Lavender Star Flower Seasonal Flowers Boocharls Trailing Indigo Bush Dwarf Lantana Verbena 24' - 48' Box 16' . 20' Hts 24' - 36' Box 24' - 36' Box 24' - 48' Box 24' - 48' Box 24' - 36' Box 24' - 36' Box 5 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gat 5 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal 5Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal 5 Got 5 Gal 1p-14'Do 5'- V Hts. 64 Cane Min 5 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal 5Gal 5 Gal Flats @ 9. O.C. 5 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN 1 �- 116C �_13 August 7, 1991 4 Q _- December 19, 1991 C �� LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS El Mirador Medical Plaza La Quinta, CA I. Objectives: Through the proper use of plant materials, irrigation systems and other traditional 'landscape" features/ materials, establish a development that achieves the following: A. Appropriate "blend" with existing adjacent landscapes. B. Desirable aesthetics for both the "users" of this site, as well as the general public driving by. C. Functional design that exhibits limited requirements for excessive maintenance. D. Protection from harmful effects of wind and water erosion. II. Criteria/Assumptions: The "baseline' from which this overall landscape development concept has evolved is as follows: A. There will be an adequate budget to allow for construction/installation of landscape development as shown on drawings and/or as specified in Project Manual. B. There will be a commitment on the part of Desert Hospital to employ the services of a professional maintenance organization to properly maintain the landscape development following construction/installation. C. Landscape development outside the property lines, other than establishment of a "rock surface' (i.e. within the Washington Street R.O.W.), is not considered a part of this project at this time. III. System Description: A. The Landscape Development Concept Plan illustrates various separate and distinct landscape "zones". These zones were initially conceived and isolated from one another based on two critical factors: level of maintenance required; and cost of installation. 1. Landscape Zone A: Combination of durable turf areas and hand. -planted ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcovers; "high" maintenance requirements; "high" Henningson, Durham Suite 125 Telephone Architecture & Richardson, Inc. 12700 Hillcrest Road 214 960-4000 Engineering Dallas, Texas Planning 75230-2096 1 , . 07( irrigation system requirements. Plant list typical for this zone: Hybrid Bermuda grass, Cactus, Bird -of -Paradise, Asparagus Fern, Cycad, Bougainvillea, Gazania, Sage, Lilyturf, Lantana, Yucca, Abelias, Cotoneaster, Nandina, Jasmine, Roses, Palms, Loquat, Abyssinian Banana, Weeping Fig, Edible Fig, Creeping Fig, Evergreen Ash, Honeylocust, California Holly, Jacaranda, Goldenrain Tree, Crape Myrtle, Primrose Tree, Sweet Bay, Olive, Photinia, Pit tosporum, Pomegranate, Oak, Linden, Chinese Jujube, and other plants from the suggested plant list contained within the Washington Square Specific Plan Document. 2. Landscape Zone B: Durable turf areas; "medium' maintenance requirements; "medium" irrigation system requirements. Plant list typical for this zone: Common Bermuda grass. 3. Landscape Zone C: Hydroseeded native grasses, wildflowers and/or groundcovers; "medium" maintenance requirements; "low" irrigation system requirements. Plant list typical for this zone: Fescue grasses, Ryegrasses, Rattlesnake grass, Pampas grass, Fountain grass, Gazania, Lantana, and other native grasses and wildflowers. '' * 07< 1 B. This landscape development needs to have the capability of minimizing irrigation demand in selected areas following establishment of plants (particularly in the drought tolerant/resistant zones). C. This landscape development needs to utilize drought tolerant/resistant plant materials within certain areas of the site. D. This landscape development will utilize a limited number of ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcovers, predominantly restricted to the high-profile/pedestrian areas. E. This landscape development will utilise a limited amount of durable turf areas in high use/active areas of the site. F. The irrigation system in this landscape development will be comprised of a hierarchy of different types of systems as necessary to meet plant material establishment and maintenance requirements, as well as the ongoing overall anticipated maintenance regime. These systems can be divided into five basic categories: 1. Small turf area systems (spray heads spaced between 7 and 15 feet on center). 2. Shrub area systems (spray heads spaced between 5 and 15 feet on center, using fixed position risers and 12-inch pop-up heads), including bubbler and drip systems where appropriate. 3. Large turf area systems (gear driven rotor heads with 3- inch pop-up stroke, spaced 30 to 60 feet on center). IV. Design Evaluation: A. In general, utilize low maintenance plant materials, suitable for proper mature development in the La Quinta microclimate. B. Minimize irrigation water needs where possible. PROGRAM Space Inventory Summation The following program space listing was derived from discussions with hospital personnel, the physician survey, the market survey, and professional experience. It represents the total space required for Phase One. Space Description Sq. Ft. 1. Physician Interest Space (Medical Offices) a. Physician Survey 23,200 NSF b. Physician Recruitment 5,000 NSF c. Cancer Care Center 6,000 NSF r� Sub -total 34,200 NSF 2. AncillaryServices Space a. Ambulatory Surgery Center 11,822 GUSF b. Diagnostic Imaging/Linear Accelerator 14,172 GUSF c. Clinical Laboratory 550 GUSF d. Pharmacy 869 GUSF e. Urgent Care Center 2,000 GUSF Sub -total 29,413 GUSF Medical Office Building Physician Interest, Physician Recruitment, 34,200 NSF Cancer Care Center Pharmacy 869 NSF Urgent Care Center 2,000 NSF Total Gross Usable Square Feet Affected by Efficiency Factor (83%) 37,069 GUSF 37,069 divided by .83 - (GROSS MOB SOFT) 44,661 GSF Ambulatory Outpatient Building i� Ambulatory Surgery Center 11,822 GusF Diagnostic Imaging Center/Linear Accelerator 14,172 GUSF Clinical Laboratory Total Gross Usable Square Feet Affected by 550 GUSF Efficiency Factor (83%) 26,544 GUSF 26,544 divided by .83 = (AMBULATORY OUTPATIENT 1� SM. GROSS SQUARE FT.) 31,981 GSF Total Gross Building Square Feet 76,642 GSF Optional Ancillary Services a. Physical Therapy/Cardiac Rehab 3,240 GUSF It t1 NOTE: An assumed 83% efficiency factor was used for preliminary design purposes, this could vary based on final design considerations. %TAL 81�790 Henningson, Durham d Richardson, Inc. jPEdiJED Page 4 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1992 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-473; DESERT HOSPITAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27399 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27031 (MINOR CHANGE) APPLICANT: DESERT HOSPITAL, EL MIRADOR MEDICAL COMPLEX & BIRTCHER REQUEST: T PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN O MEDICAL/OFFICE COMPLEX PERMIT A THREE STORY(82,000 SQUARE FEET/PHASE I) ON A PORTION OF A 65.4 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET NORTH OF 47TH AVENUE. A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 19 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS. A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH ALLOWED THE SUBDIVISION OF 65.4 ACRES INTO 8 LOTS (7 DEVELOPABLE LOTS). GENERAL LOCATION: AVENUE/HIGHLAND INGTON TPALMS DET AND DOR EAST SIDE OF RIVE,AIGNALIZED INTERSECTION). LARGER LOCATION: HIIGHWAYO111,7EAST OFAVENUE, WASHINGTON STREETSIMON DRIVE AND WEST OF THE FUTURE ADAMS STREET. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: C-P-S/VACANT & SIMON MOTORS (ACROSS SIMON DRIVE) SOUTH: R-1/SINGLE FAMILY, LAKE LA QUINTA, VACANT EAST: C-P-S/ PROPOSED REGIONAL MALL SITE (ACROSS ADAMSSTREET) WEST: R-1 RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET) LAND AREA: 65.4 ACRES (19 ACRES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT) BUILDING AREA: 82,000 SQUARE FEET (PHASE I) - MEDICAL CENTER DRBST.010 I A-,I4.1 0 7 4 BACKGROUND: In September and December of last year, the City reviewed the development plans of Desert Hospital for their proposed out -patient facility on the west side of Washington Street, south of Highland Palms/47th Avenue. The proposed medical facility was not permitted as the zoning was not allowed to change to office/medical and related services from R-1 Single Family Residential. The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the project on this site. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed 19 acre site is a portion of a 65.4 acre property. The Desert Hospital Group is in escrow on the 19 acre property contingent on the approval of this development plan. The remaining acres has frontage along Washington Street, Simon Drive, and Highway 111. The Desert Hospital site has 1,000 feet of frontage along Washington Street and is 705 feet on 47th Avenue. The parcel(s) are vacant at this time. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 59 feet. The site is partially improved with new street improvements along Washington Street, but the site does not have curb, gutter or sidewalk improvements except on 47th Avenue. A raised median island exists on the west side of Washington Street and it was installed by the City in 1989. SITE DESIGN: The proposed Phase I three story medical building has been positioned in the center of the lot with proposed parking encircling the building. The plan has been designed to meet the requirements of the Washington Street Specific Plan originally adopted by the City in 1989 and amended in 1991. Access driveways have been positioned to permit easy access to and from the site and all parking areas are conveniently placed to assist patron usage. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING: The landscape setback along the frontage of *the site is approximately 20 feet, and a meandering sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. The sidewalk along Washington Street, a major arterial, is eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. A concept landscape plan was submitted in December, 1991, and the plan is attached. The preliminary concept is too rough to comment on but later on in this report, a recommendation has been drafted concerning the matter. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The three story building which is the same design as previously proposed, is 160 feet from Washington Street and is designed to allow easy access from the abutting parking lot areas into the first floor common waiting area. The proposed Spanish style design motif is indicative of this region (e.g. , the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.). Preliminary discussions with the architect have indicated the building will be painted white and include green and yellow accent tiles. A covered arcade is proposed for the perimeter of the building around the first floor and the architect has included textured paved areas to define the public DRBST.010 0 / ., spaces. Planters are also interspersed along the pedestrian areas to add additional character to the entry into the proposed facility. The proposed building meets the design parameters of the City. STAFF COMMENTS: The landscape program for Washington Street should include a variation of planting materials, such as Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The material listed in the specific plan should be utilized. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watts) . 2. The proposed retention areas on -site should be landscaped with materials which will support growth even though they are accepting water run-off from paved surfaces. 3. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk should be installed along Washington Street along the frontage of the site. If the sidewalk is to be located on a portion of private property an on -site easement shall be offered. Lawn should not be used between the street curbs and meandering sidewalk except in those areas where it can be kept five feet from the curb, planting adjacent to curb should utilize emitter irrigation. 4. The proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210. The height of the light poles should not exceed 20 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should try to reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 5. Public art pieces should be installed on the property along Washington Street at each of the project entries. The primary art feature should be located at the Washington Street access point. 6. Public easements should be offered to the City for the intersections of Washington Street/47th Avenue and Washington Street/Via El Mirador to permit the City the option of placing public art objects on these corners in the future, in case the property does not opt to install art objects in these locations per the City's Art in Public Places Ordinance. 7. All future buildings will be subject to further study by the Design Review Board through Plot Plan applications. 8. The Applicant should examine covered parking spaces for 10 percent of the proposed on -site parking spaces. The covered trellises should be either wood or metal and spaces should be interspersed throughout the site. 9. All trash and loading area facilities should be located so that they cannot be seen from any public thoroughfare. The areas should be screened by using masonry wall enclosures and landscaping. DRBST. 010 �' �� 7F 10. All windows on the second and third floor should be recessed into the building envelope (approximately 6 inches) and sunshade canopies should be used to reduce the sun exposure on the areas which are susceptible to mid -afternoon heating. 11. Prior to preparation of final landscaping/irrigation plans, preliminary landscaping plans should be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. 12. Landscape design, planting, and screening shall comply with the specific plan approval and applicable City codes. 13. A master sign program should be reviewed/approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of any permits for permanent signs at this location. 14. Design measures should be examined to minimize the exposure of the proposed parking lots) as they relate to Washington Street, a public thoroughfare. The landscape plan submittal should include provisions for both planter hedges and masonry screen walls along the property frontage. 15. Decorative paved entryways should be included into the project design to enhance the development. The specific plan standards should be met. 16. All final working drawings should be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said plans should include but not be limited to site, grading, building, landscaping, irrigation, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, and utility plans. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the plans in light of the above Staff comments. Should the Design Review Board feel revisions are needed, conditions requiring review by the Staff or Design Review Board before submission to the Building and Safety Department can be imposed or revisions can be required prior to Planning Commission action on this request. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Vicinity Map/Parcel Map 3. Large Development Plans 4. Excerpts from the Washington Street Specific Plan 5. HDR Landscape Development Concept text 6. Space inventory summary DRBST.010 X W IH Z 0 U .J Q V 0 J Z 0 Q V 0 J 1-� U W "9 0 w a M W ix .NOT 70 SCALEFIFINI WASHINGTON SQUARE 0 COMMERCIAL MULTI -USE CENTERLu U. QUINTA, CALIFORNIA �s 0 7F TENTA PARCEL MAP DECEMSER, 1991 Via E1 Mirad PARCEL 2 1.0 .t PARCEL 3 I'm q PARCEL • . I.s s ITiff t/TY OF iA OUINTAI R TIVE NO. 27000'f PARCEL i q.w s 911J11 sw 1 (sortss I JII(Nlf AM— orth 47th Avenue •� �' _ e.� f/JIIN TRACT NV. 242)0 I~nH1 LAKE !A 9VINTA fal 1'�11(• 1-4 * ,,, 07c va 9 g mg8 ° s 1. 1 I IN $� 'all N ^� 0 i e e :g • *Q � i ER if Mpg04 I a� sag $ ?s sIY H5£ c v d d m E 3 n d w SNOV813S 9NIMM Z-AI 3anou V 9NI011f19 1VOIdA1 ° s g We jxw aw =u U) =C zn 02O �Qu ZUQ cZ yFn 9O0 ua RR $QL $g o 0.8 8; ggag is s Z$go gs E sev -`S Y o2gs g$ son P8 p" ":o.. o b 4 3:c^°$8o eg o B0 " n � B Y�6 Ig8g a gg YgB ��sEE€ E`E s sue$ ggg 5 8 013 eggs f $Ag S Y o a u i ° r ° e e :g tl a. i q¢ 0 n SNOISN3WI4 33VdS ONIN8Vd C-AI 3anew p20 O m O f O QOi• wqJ i °%:b-7 O W c U y:?2 =c O�� 1- G VI i U ZUi y20 QOm3U- a 0 0 z T g c16 c� c p 8� bE "'R 4Y Y�Y s• iE � °E a 4 011g% $ $g 8 $g ggj2 , a ° � m M a • w O s •'g s� i 1 1 0 8 � m 3Sig 0 8 g°n ��$$g az 2u's$��€ $g =8m 39 ° m02 ad ��abs$S wa:o$s g0B s a� $UZI - ��ihgg`gt� g'g` agyE o$--'E sLLr sgga ggu a��$ 84yT�i g$4 s g; E8 8a tail d L St� � o83u° 20 �5 s u - u Y e Y 0 m s g a y i t f� pJ E F E t S1N3W3wnO3d JNWIMS b-AI Rine 3 33VdS 9NDIM W c Q 2 =�i U y�2 =C ,O^ D V V Za= yss Q 0 Q 3u- ■memm¥w a ¥ ONIOV01 mon K sn nn&u I . «|- |�) ,., Ell | Ll ■ \\! zD0 § ;_ $ !` k u- E3 ) ) �! |!!B ! SI M | �a 0 A !|E!; '§ | •!!ik �| / $|aft S- f |! k !•| §! !f § HIM f\�§ � .|| $f|||7 t| !§!kf �|a! !c | |�a£.=� i§ ,! !.�! � !0 `#� �v ]-§ � � �!=|)t7 /tl hill; 7|® |_ '!la 4s».ls0 i5.! �; ;�.!# |_ ) §K )$ ', no VA �g o- 3 ao ygE$rs 9!ol m$ s , 3z ab igs E2 8 go JIB gr s $QP a 1 � 2 .$ O8 c tilt o �o yy9 tk � g C p 9� asps �� =85 Jig. s ° E s £a All r r a O w s 0 s 37 i WASHINGTON S( COMMERCIAL MULTI -USE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA BIRTCHER 72120 Monufadunng ad, So'e Tnousond POIMS, CA 92276 Tel: 619 343-2330 FcS: 619 34; ��� HIGHWAY 111 / WASHINGTON ADAMS STREETS LANDSCAPE 000SIMON DRIVE / AVENUE 47 LANDSCAPE •*Q AVENUE 47 LANDSCAPE MAJOR CORNER LANDSCAPE PEDESTRIAN SEATING AREA LM LANDSCAPE MAIN ENTRY n SECONDARY ENTRY SOURCE: LandSccpe Conoopt Man, Ronald Gregory ASSoclafa, February 11, 1991. �gc 3 O d W s U O W ` J J W LL W O 0 6 u J 's V u - S u z Q � a Z r J m l W Cm qccMIXuj 1 zW m uo .1 i a i W V zN ZQ <LL U W Q Q za �Q G W �a O z a O 3uyi z \' I 2W OLZ CIO _ -> 'I. Q a0 6 I 7 U jQOZ O a � /I � < a 30 W J,I Im w N 0 • ,Oa G C ~ I =N W • mY N V I( �WU y I I: 1` NW 0 �i. 2 i{' • I wo • O � • C N 2 yaj N 4 W , R • m I ( W 1 8 C W < u 6 J 6 W O u z z 7 O a V 3 0 a � ` W W� < y ►J 2 It z 2 O J u o c o ` l N j m z � v pp N � V� a W W 40 �J V Z 7 6 u a " N a m � a W O 2 y J 0 Y O m 2 W U V 6 M-1 W > 0 j N J S i i i o i i o 0 - w i G i s s m 0 09; Table VI-1 Proposed Plant Palette Botankal Nam n Cexomen Na fNe Palms: Chamaerops Humlils Mediterranean Fan Palm 24' - 48' Box Phoenix Dactylifero Date Palm - 16 - 2Q Hb Trees: Chllopsis Linearis Desert Willow 24' - 36' Box Brochychhon Populneua Bottle Tree 24' - 36' Box Box Jocarando Aculifollo Jacaranda 24' - 48' 24' - 48' Box Prosopsls Chilensis Chilean Mesquite 24' - 36' Box Rhus Loncea African Sumac Callfomla Pepper 24' - 36' Box Schinus Moue Shrubs Bougainvillea 'la Jolla' Clumping Bougalnvlllea 5 Gal Coesolpinia G1111 I Mexican Bird of Paradise 5 Gal Coesalpinla Pulcherrima Red Bird of Paradise 5 Gal 5 Gal Cassia Memisloldes Feathery Cassia 5 Gal Cosslo VAlizenil Shrubby Sena 5 Gal Dodoneo V.'Purpuroea' Hopseed Bush 5 Got Encelia FoOntoso Brmle Bush Creosote Bush 5 Gal Larrea Trldemda LeucophYllum F. 'Green Cloud' Texas Ranger 5 Col Nerium Oleander 'Petite Pink' Dwarf Oleander 5 Gal Pennisetum S. 'Cupreum' Purple Fountain Grass 5 Gol 5 Gol SoNio Greggll Sage Echinococtus Grusonil Golden Barrel Cactus 1 Q - 14' Dia 5' - 6 His, 6-6 Cam Mi Fououlerla Splendens Ocotillo 5 Gal Hesperaloe Parvillora Red Yucca 5 Gal Yucca Pendula Soft leaf Yucca ES liars: Bougainvlilea'Son Diego Red' Bougainvillea 5 Gal Gehemium Sempervirens Carolina Jessamine 5 Gal Grewla Cattra lavender Star Flower 5 Gal Annual Color Seasonal Flowers Flats Q 9' O.C. 5 Gd 800charb P. 'Centennial' Boocharb 5 Gal Dales GreggB Trailing Indigo Bush 5 Gal Lantana C. 'Dwarf Yellow Dwarf Lantana Palm Springs Gold Fines 5 Gal Verbena P. 'StarBre' Verbeno t.s � WASXINOTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN �� 09� VI-13 ,ee, December 19, 1991 DEc 2 0 1991 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS El Mirador Medical Plaza La Quinta, CA I. Objectives: Through the proper use of plant materials, irrigation systems and other traditional "landscape' features/ materials, establish a development that achieves the following: A. Appropriate 'blend" with existing adjacent landscapes. B. Desirable aesthetics for both the "users" of this site, as well as the general public driving by. C. Functional design that exhibits limited requirements for excessive maintenance. D. Protection from harmful effects of wind and water erosion. II. Criteria/Assumptions: The "baseline" from which this overall landscape development concept has evolved is as follows: A. There will be an adequate budget to allow for construction/installation of landscape development as shown on drawings and/or as specified in Project Manual. B. There will be a commitment on the part of Desert Hospital to employ the services of a professional maintenance organization to properly maintain the landscape development following construction/installation. C. Landscape development outside the property lines, other than establishment of a "rock surface' (i.e. within the Washington Street R.O.W.), is not considered a part of this project at this time. III. System Description: A. The Landscape Development Concept Plan illustrates various separate and distinct landscape "zones". These zones were initially conceived and isolated from one another based on two critical factors: level of maintenance required; and cost of installation. 1. Landscape Zone A: Combination of durable turf areas and hand -planted ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcovers; 'high" maintenance requirements; "high" Suite 125 Telephone Architecture & Rich rdso Durham 214 960-4000 Engineering & nichardson, Inc. Dallas Hillas Road Planning Dallas. Texas 75230-2096' irrigation system requirements. Plant list typical for this zone: Hybrid Bermuda grass, Cactus, Bird -of -Paradise, Asparagus Fern, Cycad, Bougainvillea, Gazania, Sage, Lilyturf, Lantana, Yucca, Abelias, Cotoneaster, Nandina, Jasmine, Roses, Palms, Loquat, Abyssinian Banana, Weeping Fig, Edible Fig, Creeping Fig, Evergreen Ash, Honeylocust, California Holly, Jacaranda, Goldenrain Tree, Crape Myrtle, Primrose Tree, Sweet Bay, Olive, Photinia, Pittosporum, Pomegranate, Oak, Linden, Chinese Jujube, and other plants from the suggested plant list contained within the Washington Square Specific Plan Document. 2. Landscape Zone B: Durable turf areas; "medium' maintenance requirements; "medium" irrigation system requirements. Plant list typical for this zone: Common Bermuda grass. ive grasses, 3. Landscape Zone C: Hydroseedwildflowers eand/ort g oundcovers; "medium" maintenance requirements; "low" irrigation system requirements. Plant list typical for this zone: Fescue grasses, Ryegrasses, Rattlesnake grass, Pampas grass, Fountain grass, Gazania, Lantana, and other native grasses and wildflowers. B. This landscape development needs to have the capability of minimizing irrigation demand in selected areas following establishment of plants (particularly in the drought tolerant/resistant zones). C. This landscape development needs to utilize drought tolerant/resistant plant materials within certain areas of the site. D. This landscape development will utilize a limited number of ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcovers, predominantly restricted to the high-profile/pedestrian areas. E. This landscape development will utilize a limited amount of durable turf areas in high use/active areas of the site. F. The irrigation system in this landscape development will be comprised of a hierarchy of different types of systems as necessary to meet plant material establishment and maintenance requirements, as well as the ongoing overall anticipated maintenance regime. These systems can be divided into five basic categories: 1. Small turf area systems (spray heads spaced between 7 and 15 feet on center). 2. Shrub area systems (spray heads spaced between 5 and 15 feet on center, using fixed position risers and 12-inch pop-up heads), including bubbler and drip systems where appropriate. 3. Large turf area systems (gear driven rotor heads with 3- inch pop-up stroke, spaced 30 to 60 feet on center). IV. Design Evaluation: p, In general, utilize low maintenance plant materials, suitable for proper mature development in the La Quinta microclimate. B. Minimize irrigation water needs where possible. PROGRAM Space Inventory Summation The following program space listing was derived from discussions with hospital personnel, the physician survey, the market survey, and professional experience. It represents the total space required for Phase One. Space Description Sq. Ft. 1. Physician Interest Space (Medical Offices) a. Physician Survey 23,200 NsF b. Physician Recruitment 5,000 NSF c. Cancer Care Center 6,000 NSF n Sub -total 34,200 NSF 2. Ancillary Services Space a. Ambulatory Surgery Center 11,822 GUSF b. Diagnostic lmagingR inearAccelerator 14,172 GusF c. Clinical Laboratory 550 GUSF d. Pharmacy 869 GUSF e. Urger Care Center 2,000 GUSF Sub -total 29,413 GusF Medical Office Building Physician Interest, Physician Recruitment, 34,200 NSF Cancer Care Center Pharmacy 869 NSF Urgent Care Center 2,000 NSF Total Gross Usable Square Feet Affected by Efficiency Factor (83%) 37,069 GusF 37,069 divided by .83 = (GROSS MOB SO FT) 44,661 GSF Ambulatory Outpatient Building Ambulatory Surgery Center 11,822 GUSF Diagnostic Imaging Center/Linear Accelerator 14,172 GusF Clinical Laboratory 550 GUSF Total Gross Usable Square Feet Affected by Efficiency Factor (830/9) 26,544 GUSF 26,544 divided by .83 = (AMBULATORY OUTPATIENT BLDG. GROSS SQUARE FT.) 31,981 GSF Total Gross Building Square Feet 76,642 GsF Optional Anciilary Services a. Physical Therapy/Cardiac Rehab 3,240 GUSF r NOTE: An assumed 83%officien factor was used for preliminary design u i �Y P ry 5 purposes, this could vary based on final design considerations. (167- 61- Henningson, Durham 6 Richardson, Inc. j 00-6C0 Page 4 0a