Loading...
2010 04 07 ALRCCity of La Quinta F. ALRC Agendas are now V - 5 available on the City's Web Page r, „m @ www.la-guinta.org S OF Tt9� 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 APRIL 7, 2010 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2010-001 I. 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 the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2009. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2010-913 Applicant........... Shea Homes Location............ East of the CVWD Dike #4, Between Avenues 60 and 62, and West of Trilogy Project. Request ............. Consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for Three Prototypical Residential Plans for Use in Tract 35996 (Trilogy Annexation). Action ............... Minute Motion 2010- VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: A. Quarterly Attendance Report Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: A. Planning Commission Update IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on May 5, 2010, 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 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting of Wednesday, April 7, 2010 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Thursday, April 1, 2010. DATED: April 1, 2010 C co� CAROLY WALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 2, 2009 10:06 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:06 'ia.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the, flag salute. B. Committee Members Present: Ray Rooker and David Thorns Committee Member Absent: Jason Arnold C. Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and,,Secretary Monika Radeva IL PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:' Staff asked if there ,were any changes to the Minutes of October 7, 2009. There beings' roo ,comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thoms to approve the minutes as submitted. Un`animously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Village Use Permit 2008-042 a request submitted by Dr. Kathryn Carlson,'DVM, for consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for the Village Animal Hospital; an 8,752 square foot Veterinary Facility with on -site boarding located east of Eisenhower Drive, between Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Martinez in the Village Commercial District. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Rooker asked the applicant if any animals would be kept outside and if that was the purpose for the high fencing. Dr. Kathryn Carlson, DVM, 77-895 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, introduced herself and explained that the outside area between the building and the high fence was designated for walking the hospitalized animals on leash and not for overnight boarding. Committee Member Rooker asked staff if the Village Design Guidelines mandate that the building be designed the same way as the current animal hospital. Staff replied it did not. Committee Member Rooker said he was pleased with the project, but he found the overall mass of the building to be overwhelming for the site and the setbacks to be too small. He said he would like to find a way to mitigate that contrast and make it a bit softer. He suggested the use of a darker color, such as a chocolate brown, instead of the proposed bright white, for the building to soften its massive appearance. Committee Member Rooker expressedhis concern about the elevation on, Eisenhower!,Drive as that was the main corner exposure'11 of the building and there was very little in terms of design and landscaping to break up'its, overwhelming mass. He suggested the use of two or three palm trees in the existing planter as well as some cascading plants on the second floor balconies to soften the impaot of the building. Dr. Carlson said she liked the landscaping suggestions and she would take them into consideration. She noted she had considered having cascading plants on the balconies, but then realized that it wouldu'licover`the artistic design of the screens she wanted to have. Committee Member Rooker noted the cascading plants would be more effective and more cost efficient. Committee Member Rooker expressed his concern about the trash enclosure location as it was too remote, he suggested re -locating it so that it was adjacent to the building. Mr. Brian de Coster, Architect, 77-895 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, introduced himself and explained the trash was taken out daily, after business hours, and the proposed location for the trash enclosure would not be inconvenient. P:\Reports - ALRC\20IO\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Draft.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Rooker said the proposed location of the water fountain made it seem as if it was an afterthought and in the way of the pedestrian walkway. He recommended the presentation of the water feature be more architecturally symmetrical, possibly moving it out by the front column and making it visible from the parking lot. Dr. Carlson explained why the suggested location would not be appropriate for a veterinary clinic and the type of subtle, slow drip, cascading, water feature she had in mind which was not accurately depicted in the plans. Committee Member Rooker said he was pleased with the applicant's'' explanation. Committee Member Rooker said the north elevation roof fascia and rafter tail on drawing four of the plans seemed to be out of scale. Mr. de Coster said the plans would be corrected and noted that the applicant's intent was to have exposed rafter tails everywhere possible. Committee Member Rooker said he found the 24-inch box trees, proposed for the parkinglot, to be a ;bit small and suggested the use of 36-inch box trees to help break up the concrete a bit. The applicant agreed. Committee 'Member Rooker asked if there would be an outside landscaped area for waiting', animal patients. Dr. Carlson replied there would be some along Avenida Mendoza. Discussion followed about possible 'additional :.landscaped area contingent upon compliance with code reouirements. Committee Member, Thoms said he generally agreed with the above stated comments made by Committee Member Rooker. Committee Member Thoms reiterated Committee Member Rooker's suggestion to add vertical plants along Eisenhower Drive. He said he liked;�!!ihe architectural ridge design above the windows, but he noted that a set of windows on the first floor did not have it. He said the ridge added a nice feature to the building and he would like all of the windows to have it. Committee Member Thoms asked if the applicant would keep the current animal hospital in additional to the proposed new facility. Dr. Carlson replied the current animal hospital would be relocated to the new building once it was completed. P:\Reports - ALRC\20IO\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Draft.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Thoms asked why the applicant was tearing down the existing building completely and re -building it, instead of just modifying it. Mr. de Coster enumerated several design issues which could not be addressed through a modification. Mr. de Coster said the reason no landscaping was placed along Eisenhower Drive was because there was a concern of whether or not there was sufficient space to place palm trees that would not be too close and hazardous to the building if exposed to high winds. Discussion followed on what types of palm trees might be appropriate to consider in this situation. Committee Member Thoms askedif the finish on the stucco was flat or sand. Dr. Carlson said she would prefer to have smooth finish, however, she might have,`to accept a sand finish due to cost considerations. Discussion followed' regarding different, types of building finish options, architectural design features, and color contrasts. Committee landscape'', Member Thoms said he would have preferred the he found'the of artificial_ c grass was regi was.: easier 'b hospitalized an of simple,"'shi la :ect give a presentation to the Committee. He said of proposed;,, plants to be too extensive and the use s unnecessary. Dr. Carlson explained the artificial red,, even though it was more expensive, because it clean and maintain after being used by the nals. Committee Member Thoms suggested the use b planting along with the artificial grass, and he„rproposed plant list was too diverse. He noted on the south side should also be simplified. Discussion followed regarding different types of plants, trees, and other landscaping options. Committee Member Thoms said the landscaping should not be overpowering, but rather complimentary to the building. Committee Member Thoms suggested the removal of the planter identified by the parking lot on the east elevation as it would become a maintenance issue over time. P:\Reports - ALRC\2010WLRC_4-7-IO\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Draft.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 Committee Member Rooker asked about the type of material that would be used for the sidewalk by the front entrance. He noted the plans had identified two different surfaces, a flat one and a paved one. He suggested the applicant only use one type, either all pavers or all colored tile. The applicant agreed. Committee Member Thorns also agreed with this comment. Committee Member Thorns said he did not like the use of wheel - stops in the parking lot because after awhile they seemed to become a maintenance issue. Staff replied the wheel -stops were recommended by the Public Works Department to help regulate the flow of traffic in the appropriate direction as, the site circulation was a bit complicated. Committee Member Thorns said he did not like the multi -color roof of the building and suggested the use of a single -color instead. He said it was about simplifying the, .design with elegant materials. Committee Member Rooker noted he did not have a preference on the roof as it was too high to be really noticed. Committee Member Rooker said' his comments and suggestions on the project were merely recommendations and he would not like to include any of them as conditions of approval. Committee Member Thorns aoreed with that as well. Staff said the!,following comments had been made by the m Comittee for:the applicant's and the Planning Commission's consideration, recognizing that these were not required conditions, but rather recommended suggestions: • The use of a darker color for the building, such as chocolate brown,, to minimize the mass of the building. •.' Additional palm trees be added along Eisenhower Drive to help break up the massiveness of the building. • The design and placement of the proposed water feature be adjusted, per the applicant's comments, or eliminated. • The size of the oak trees in the parking lot should be increased to 36- from 24-inch (minimum diameter calipers) boxes in the landscaping area. • Add additional dog relief area into the landscaping someplace for waiting animal patients. • Add eyebrows to the set of windows on the "sheer wall" side of the building adjacent to the parking lot. P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Draft.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 VI VII VIII • A smooth finish for the building would be preferred, rather than sand finish. • A single -tone rooftop would be preferred. • Simplify the landscaping palette by reducing the number of different types of plants. Replace the fruitless olives with Palo Verde. • Remove the planter in the sidewalk area on the eastern side at the entry. • The same type flooring should be used throughout for the entry area and the sidewalk, either pavers`or concrete. • Cascading plants should be placed ori; the balconies. There being no further questions, it, was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Rooker to adopt Minute Motion 2009- 008, recommending approval,! of Village Use Permit 2008-042 as submitted, with the suggestions as noted above. AYES: Committee Members Rooker and Thorns. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Arnold.,, CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: A. Planning Planning Manager Sawyer said as a result of the Joint Planning Commission/Architectural and Landscape Review Committee/City Council meeting held on October 27, 2010, all Final Landscaping Plans applications were now subject to staff's review and approval and would no longer be presented to the ALRC unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission. Committee Member Rooker asked staff if the Committee could procedurally ask the Planning Commission to send a project's Final'` Landscaping Plans back for ALRC review. Staff replied the Committee could make such a recommendation, but that the final decision was up to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Rooker asked that the motion for VUP 2008-042 be amended to include a recommendation from the Committee that the Final Landscaping Plans be sent back to ALRC for final review. He expressed his concern that such an action could possibly delay the development of a project by as much as thirty days. Staff replied that would be correct and P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Draft.doc 6 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes December 2, 2009 suggested the Committee not amend the motion and let the Planning Commission make the determination whether or not there were any significant issues that would trigger an ALRC review of the final plans. Committee Member Rooker asked if staff could informally present the revised landscaping plans to the Committee for review, if the motion was not amended and the Planning Commission did not direct staff to bring the case back to the ALRC. Staff replied they could not hold an informal meeting with the Committee and that the proper procedural process for an information review was that the Committee Members individually request to review the final plans on their own time. Committee Member Thoms said it was not his', intention to further complicate the review process or delaythe approval of a project. He noted the Committee's responsibilityi,,was to review the submitted plans and offer expertise by making comments 'and recommendations for improvement. However, the Committee could not enforce any recommendations unless the applicant was; conditioned to do so by the Planning Commission. Committee Member Rooker asked'''staff.to inform the Planning Director that the Committee would like to have the; opportunity to informally and individually review the final revised plans. Committee Member Thorns asked ,staff if the ALRC could review landscaping plans for the public right-of-way. Staff replied the current proceduee1only required staff's review. Committee Member Thorns asked if there was a professional landscape architect on staff. Staff replied there was not, however, ,the City had a licensed landscape architect design, and prepare the plans. Planning Manager Sawyer explained the review and approval ;process for public right-of-way landscaping. IX. ADJOU There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thoms to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on January 6, 2010. This meeting was adjourned at 11 :19 a.m. on December 2, 2009. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA Secretary P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_4-7-10\ALRC MIN_12-2-09_Draft.doc 7 OF94`/ ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: APRIL 7, 2010 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2010-913 APPLICANT: SHEA HOMES ARCHITECT: BASSENIAN-LAGONI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HSA DESIGN GROUP REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPICAL HOUSE PLANS AND FRONT YARD AND COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING PLANS IN TRACT 35996 (TRILOGY ANNEX) LOCATION: EAST OF THE CVWD DIKE #4, BETWEEN AVENUES 60 AND 62 ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) SURROUNDING ZONING - LAND USES: NORTH: MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - TRILOGY PROJECT SOUTH: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURE/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL - VACANT LAND EAST: MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - TRILOGY PROJECT WEST: OPEN SPACE - CVWD DIKE #4 PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of a Site Development Permit is to provide specific design review of a project's proposed architecture and landscaping. The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee's (ALRC) role in reviewing this type of application is to provide the Planning Commission with a recommendation regarding the design of the proposed project and its compliance with the City's various development regulations. When reviewing applications, the ALRC is responsible for reviewing architectural design, site design, and landscape design. Architectural items for review include, building mass, scale, architectural style, and aesthetic details, including materials, roof style, and colors. Site related items include exterior lighting fixtures, project entries, streetscape, water features, pedestrian circulation, and similar amenities. Landscape review includes plant types, plant location and size, landscape screening of equipment and undesirable views, and the emphasis of prominent design features. Such coordinated review is necessary to promote a unifying project design, compatibility with other surrounding uses, and aesthetic consistency with existing architecture and the level of quality prevalent in the community. Once reviewed, the ALRC's recommendation will be included in the staff report presented to the Planning Commission. To assist the ALRC in this review, the following background and analysis is provided. BACKGROUND The project site, which consists of 36 single family lots which will become a part of Trilogy, was approved as Tentative Tract Map 36241 by the City Council on March 16 of this year. The property is located south and west of the Trilogy project in south La Quinta generally west of Monroe Street, between Avenues 60 and 62 (Attachment 1). The 9.02 acre site is a wedge shape vacant property bordered by an earthen CVWD Dike #4 to the west and the back yards of Trilogy residences to the east and north and vacant property to the south (Attachment 2). PROJECT REQUEST Architecture: The applicant has requested approval of three prototypical residential model plans from their Trilogy Mariposa Collection for construction in the tract. Because these approved plans are being constructed in Trilogy, the sales brochures and photographs of the existing homes have been submitted for review (Attachment 3). These three plans are part of the eleven plan types that have been offered for sale at Trilogy. Each of the proposed plans is designed with three front elevation treatments. The three facade treatments for each plan as described by the applicant utilize Mediterranean, Spanish and Tuscan styles of architecture. The three plan types are as follows: 1. Caspian 1,793 square feet 2 bedrooms and den 2 baths 2 + car garage 2 2. Monterey 1,943 square feet including a 255 square foot optional casita 2 bedrooms with optional casita 2 baths 2 car garage 3. Talea 2,387 square feet 2 bedrooms with optional bedroom at den 2.5 baths 2+ car garage Architectural features, depending on the model include shutters, awnings, decorative iron accents, popout window and door trim, and stone wall facades. Exterior materials consist of plaster walls, some stone accents, and various shapes of concrete tile roofing. Exterior colors vary from light to medium earth tones, with trim colors ranging from white to brown. Landscaping: Preliminary retention basin and typical front yard landscaping plans have been submitted for the project (Attachment 4). Two retention basins are provided within the tract. They are proposed to be landscaped and be a visual amenity with the abutting lots having a view of the basins. Both basins use lawn on the flat bottoms with drip irrigated shrubs and trees on the slopes and top perimeters. Desert Gold decomposed granite will cover all planter areas. Plant materials consist of low and medium water users and include mostly plants from the southwest desert area. 24"-36" box size Trees proposed are: Sweet Acacia Desert Museum Palo Verde Hybrid Mesquite Shrubs proposed include: Creosote Bush Mexican Bush Sage Lantana Encelia Agave Red Bird of Paradise Red Yucca 9 Typical front yard planting plans have been submitted for the three house designs. Planting consists of some lawn (29-33% of the front yard) with the remaining yard shrub and tree planter areas. Generally, the lawn abuts the sidewalk and adjacent driveway except for areas where a small planter abuts a portion of the sidewalk. These percentages of lawn use are a reduction from the current 60-65% of the front yard lawn area in the existing Trilogy development. Each front yard will have two or three trees and shrubs. Planter areas will be covered with Desert gold decomposed granite and coarse desert gold cobble, and be drip irrigated. Plant materials consist of low and medium water users and include plants primarily from the southwest desert area. 24"-36" box size Trees proposed are: Crape Myrtle Desert Museum Palo Verde Tipu Tree Mexican Fan Palms (10' trunk height) Shrubs proposed include: Petite Pink Oleander Yellow Oleander Texas Ranger Red Sage Lantana Rosemary Yucca Desert Spoon Street side yards will be planted entirely in shrubs with no lawn used in those areas. The plant design and some plant material are similar to that used in Trilogy to date. Because of current Coachella Valley Water District and City irrigation water use requirements, the amount of lawn has been reduced with shrub planters along portions of lawn adjacent to the sidewalks. ANALYSIS Staff finds that the overall architectural style and design of the proposed homes are acceptable. They have been constructed in Trilogy, are attractive, use quality materials, and provide some energy efficient features, such as awnings and recessed windows. Additionally, the home -buying public response has been positive. 2 In general, the landscape palette presented is acceptable. The proposed species of plants provide diversity, while having the characteristics of being functional and low water users. Accent trees and shrubs are fully utilized in complementing the architecture and layout of the residential units. Many of the plants are southwest desert species. Staff met with the applicant to review the plant palette to encourage use of native type plants. In order to increase the use of local native plants, the retention basins could use a clump of California Fan Palms (Washingtonia filiera). These would be attractive on the slope and perimeter area near the street. The applicant has stated they feel it is important to maintain the streetscape theme created in the original Trilogy development since this tract will become a part of it. This means the applicant believes the use of lawn is necessary in front yards. The amount of lawn area proposed has been reduced from that used in the existing Trilogy development to comply with the decreased water use requirements of CVWD and the City. Expansion of the shrub planters next to the sidewalk will help eliminate irrigation overspray and runoff from the lawn sprinklers. The planting and irrigation plans are required to comply with water use requirements as stipulated by the City and the Coachella Valley Water District which will ensure water conservation. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 2010- 913, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. Irrigation design and water use shall comply with the efficiency requirements of Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 5 2. Within each retention basin near the street provide a clump (minimum 3 trees, 10-13 feet high - brown trunk height) of California Fan Palms (Washingtonia filiera). 3. Lawn areas for all residences shall be separated from the sidewalk by a minimum two foot wide shrub/groundcover drip irrigated planter. Prepared by: 'BtAy\, '5At46 Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial View of Site and surrounding area 3. Proposed Residential Plans 4. Preliminary Landscaping Plans 3 C9.7-21TkI COTY OF L % OMON71% I ■ CASE MAP ATTACHMENT 1 City limits ��4 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. ORT SHEA HOMES 1 SCALE NTS Kv. rE� !KAI 23 tv