Loading...
2011 06 01 ALRCO%f.& wiry of La Quinta ALRC Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall — Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JUNE 1, 2011 10:00 A.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2011-004 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. 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. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 6, 2011. ',,M,2�'! VA -.I! ].j V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762, AMENDMENT' 1 Applicant ........... WSL La Quinta, LLC. Location ............ Northeast Corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 Request ............. Consideration of Architectural, Site, and Landscaping Plans for La Paloma, a 208-Unit Senior Living Community. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: A. Planning Commission Update B. Discussion Regarding Summer Meeting Schedule IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee will be adjourned to a Special Meeting to be held on June 22, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING 1, 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, June 1 ' , 2011, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calls Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Thursday, May 26, 2011. DATED: May 26, 2011 ZROLY �WALKYER, 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 April 6, 2011 10:05 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 110:05: a ' m7 by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flad'-salute. B. Committee Members Present: Jason Arnold, Kev , in McCune, and David Thorns Committee Members Absent: None C. Staff present: Planning,,Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Wally Nesbit, and Secretary Moinika, Radeva 11. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: .Staff, asked. if,thlere were any changes to the Minutes of February 2, 2011. There being 'no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Committee Mernbets McCune/Thoms to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-852, Perimeter Wall Plan a request submitted by Crowne Pointe Partners, LLC. for consideration of perimeter wall design for a 264-unit residential condominium project located at PGA West, north and east of PGA Boulevard. Principal Planner Wally Nesbit 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 April 6, 2011 Committee Member McCune asked if the existing landscaping consisted of turf. Staff replied the landscaping was mostly turf and some shrubs. Committee Member McCune asked if the sole reason for the perimeter wall was to improve the aesthetic of the undeveloped part of the project and if the landscaping design on the submitted plans was merely conceptual at this stage of the development process. Staff explained the residents had been requesting that the perimeter wall be built, as soon as possible, for aesthetic reasons as well as to keep the dust down and that the landscaping design was conceptual and the actual proposed landscaping would be submitted for review and consideration at a later time. Committee Member Thorns said he found the proposed design of the wall to be very simple. He, noted that,'the proposed plans did not follow the same design as the'existing' perimeter wall along PGA Boulevard, north of the project. He asked why the wall did not incorporate the same step -back and palm tree pattern. Staff replied the applicani, mirrored the design"of the existing perimeter wall located south, or directly across the street, from the project, which did ' not incorporate any step -backs in its design, and noted that the proposed wall,design would be approved by the HOA. Committee'M ember Thorns asked if the applicant would continue the same palm' tree design pattern as established to the north of the project. Mr. Barrett Bruchkauseir, Project Engineer with MDS Consulting, 78- 900 Avenue, 47, Suite 208, La Quinta, CA, introduced himself and said that the landscaping had not been addressed at this stage of the development process. He explained the applicant was working closely with the HOA and would have to obtain the HOA's approval prior to presenting the proposed landscaping plans to the Committee for review and consideration at a later time. He said at this time only the perimeter wall was being presented for consideration. Mr. Bruchhauser explained the deviations of the wall from the curb face due to the setback deviations. Committee Member Thorns referenced Attachment 2 from the staff report and recommended that the applicant consider enhancing the NReports - ALK201111ALRIG-6-1-1111ALIPIC MIN 4-6-11—Draft.doc2222.doc 2 I Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 6, 2011 perimeter wall's simple design from merely a straight wall, to incorporating some step -back design elements to accommodate the placement of palm trees in the setbacks later on. Staff said if that was the Committee's feedback, the recommendation should be included in the minute motion, and it would carry over to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Committee Member McCune noted that by looking at the plans there would be only a few places where the suggested, step -backs of the perimeter wall would be possible due to the curb setback deviations. Committee Member Thorns suggested the wall stap�backs be designed around the existing palm trees and where additional, palm trees would be placed, as he found the palm trees all along PGA Boulevard to be a very strong design element for the area. General discussion followed regarding the design of the wall, the curb setback deviations, and the palm trees. Staff noted that the Comm'ittee."'S', decision on the wall would be final and clarified that when t ' he project returned to the Committee for review and cons id eration'�. at a later time, it would be for the landscaping only, and no further modifications to the wall would be possible at that time. Committee Member McCune said that he was supportive of the street and sidewalk the way it was proposed. He pointed out that if the applicaht was to incorporate any step -backs in the wall, the street and sidewalk w ' oUld have to be redesigned. He suggested the Committee approve the wall as proposed and address the placement of palm trees along PGA Boulevard and the rest of the landscaping when the applicant submitted the proposed landscaping plans. General discussion followed regarding the possible landscaping that the applicant would propose, and the direction given by the HOA. Committee Member McCune recommended the applicant be conservative with turf proposals as the area already has a lot of excess turf. P:Iftports - ALRC1201 1ALK-6-1-111ALK MIN 4-6-11—Draft.doc2222.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes April 6, 2011 There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members McCune/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2011- 003, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-852, Perimeter Wall Plan, as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: None IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded'by Committee Members Thoms/McCune to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be he�ld' on May 4, 2011. This meeting was adjourned at 10:41 a.m. on April 6, 2011. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA Secretary I'Meports - ALRC1201 I IALRC-6-1-111ALRC MIN 4-6-11—Draft.doc2222.doc 4 BI#A OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: JUNE 1, 2011 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 APPLICANT: WSL LA QUINTA, LLC i PROPERTY OWNER: WSL LA QUINTA, LLC ARCHITECT: IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. ENGINEER: MSA CONSULTING, INC. REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR LA PALOMA, A 208-UNIT SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE50 ZONING DESIGNATION: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SOUTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VACANTLAND EAST: FLOOD PLAIN/MUNICIPAL FACILITIES EVACUATION CHANNEL/SPORTS COMPLEX WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY 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 La Paloma senior living community was originally reviewed and approved by the La Quinta City Council in 2004. The original project proposal encompassed both the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and included multiple entitlements. In addition to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2003-074) and Site Development Permit (SDP 2003-762), a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2003-091), Zone Change (ZC 2003-112), and Specific Plan (SP 2004-071) were approved to address project design criteria and development standards. At the time of the first time extension request in 2007, the project area was revised to include only the northeast corner, with the permits associated with the southeast corner allowed to expire. A second time extension request was approved on October 7, 2008. A third extension request was approved on January 19, 2010, extending the approval of the site development permit to September 18, 2010. On July 6, 2010, the applicant submitted this application to amend Site Development Permit 2003-762, which includes a revised site plan, architectural style, and landscaping. PROPOSAL Project Overview: The applicant is requesting consideration of the architectural and landscaping plans for La Paloma, a 208-unit senior living community located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 (Attachment 1, Sheet T). Located directly to the 2 north of the approximately 14-acre project site is an existing single-family residential neighborhood. Another existing single-family residential neighborhood is located to the west of the project site, across Washington Street. Vacant, un-entitled land is located to the south of the project site, across Avenue 50. The La Quinta Sports Complex is located east of the project site; on the other side of the approximately 240-foot wide La Quinta Storm Water Evacuation Channel. The p reviously-a pp roved project consisted of 216 independent and assisted living units with 18 dementia care and 20 skilled nursing beds within multiple buildings situated on two parcels. The new configuration of the La Paloma community consists of a main building which contains 117 independent living, 54 assisted living, and 17 dementia units. Along the perimeter of the project site are 20 detached cottage units (Attachment 1, Sheet C-1). The two-story main building has the following characteristics (Attachment 1, Sheet All: • One -bed and two -bed Assisted Living and Alzheimer units • One -bed, two -bed, and one- and two -bed +den Independent Living units • Units that include kitchens, bathrooms, and covered patios • Community dining areas, exercise rooms, theater, and activity rooms The 20 one-story cottage units have the following characteristics (Attachment 1, Sheet Al 9 — A21): • Two -bedroom and two -bed room+ den units • Great rooms, kitchens, laundry rooms, and covered patios • Two -car garages Architectural Design: Included with this proposal are architectural plans for the main building and cottage units, which have been designed to reflect a Desert Contemporary theme (Attachment 1, Sheet A3 — A6). This includes architectural elements such as the use of stucco as the primary exterior building material, the use of flat roofing, stacked stone, metal awnings, and incorporating shades of tan, gold, gray, and blue. Additionally, balconies, shade structures, and other design elements provide architectural articulation to the various building fa(;ades. The main building incorporates varying rooflines, with the height of the building, not including the uninhabitable tower feature, averaging approximately 25 feet in height at its highest ridgelines (Attachment 1, Sheet AU The uninhabitable tower is an approximately 11 -foot tall architectural projection, which results in a maximum structure height of 36 feet. Including all units, interior circulation areas, and ancillary uses, the main building for La Paloma totals approximately 306,000 square feet (Attachment 1, Sheet T). The height of the cottage units, at the highest roof ridgeline, is approximately 12'-6" (Attachment 1, Sheet A19 - A21). The square footage of each of the three cottage floor plans ranges from approximately 1,650 square feet to 1,720 square feet (Attachment 1, Sheet T). Included with this proposal are plans for various common areas throughout the La Paloma site (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.00). These areas, primarily courtyards within the main building, include a shaded swimming pool, bocce ball court, outdoor dance floor, putting green, active -use turf areas, and numerous gardens, fountains, and shade structures. Site Design: There are two access points identified for the proposed La Paloma community (Attachment 1, Sheet A-2). Access from the west will be from a driveway on Washington Street. This access will serve as the primary access point for the community as it leads to the vehicular entry courtyard, drop-off area, and main lobby. Access from the south will be from a driveway on Avenue 50. This access will serve as the secondary access point for the community, as well as the primary access for delivery and service vehicles. The Washington Street access consists of right -in, right - out turning movements, while the Avenue 50 access point will allow left -in, right -in, and right -out turning movements, with left -out movements prohibited. Vehicular circulation within the La Paloma community consists of a singular drive aisle that meanders around the perimeter of the property, surrounding the main building (Attachment 1, Sheet A-2). The majority of parking stalls for the project are located along this drive aisle, as well as access to the 20 cottage units and the load ing/un loading area for the main building. A total of 246 parking spaces are proposed, including one bus space, eight ADA-accessible spaces, two covered ADA-accessible spaces, two ADA- accessible van spaces, and 113 covered parking spaces. The illuminated steel carport structures are approximately 9'-6" in height, and will be painted to match the buildings (Attachment 1, Sheet A3). The applicant is also proposing landscape lighting at various locations throughout the project site (Attachment 1, Sheet L-7.00 - L-7.04). Up -lighting of the trees around the project site are to be done with canopy tree accent lights and palm tree accent lights. Walkway lights are to be placed along the numerous pedestrian walking paths throughout the site. Wall -washer lighting fixtures will also be strategically placed on walls throughout the site. The main vehicular drive aisle and parking areas are proposed to be lit with 18-foot tall pole lights (Attachment 1, Sheet L-7.02). The parking lamps are High -intensity Discharge LED lamps that are shielded and directed downward. The applicant also proposes multiple water features (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.04). One feature is proposed to be placed within the planter located in the center of the main entrance vehicular courtyard. Other features are located within the community courtyard areas and also along the drive aisle. The features are all similar, incorporating a cascading stone -veneered fountain and a concealed basin covered with pebbles. 4 Landscaping: Landscaping throughout the project site consists of primarily desert and other low- to moderate -water use plants (Attachment 1, Sheet L-5.00 — L-5.04). Mostly utilized around the buildings are various trees and shrubs, with minimal use of turf, which has been limited to two active use lawn areas and a putting green (Attachment 1, Sheet L- 1.00). The proposed tree palette includes Acacia, Citrus, African Sumacs, as well as Date Palms and Mediterranean and California Fan Palms. The shrub palette includes Agave, Yucca, Birds of Paradise, and Lantana, among others (Attachment 1, Sheet L- 5.02). The landscaped areas that run along Washington Street and Avenue 50 are proposed to be landscaped with numerous trees, shrubs, and groundcover (minimum 24" box trees; minimum 5 gallon shrubs/groundcover) (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.01 — L-1.02). A meandering sidewalk runs throughout the landscaped area along Washington Street and Avenue 50, with pedestrian access points into the project located at the vehicular access points. The project perimeter also incorporates a wall/pilaster combination screen wall (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.04). The wall will be approximately 6'-8" in height, and consists of a cement plaster finished wall with stone veneer accent pilasters. Each pilaster also includes a hooded down -light bar. Along the western property line, the wall construction will be combined with landscaped berms. A uniform perimeter masonry wall with no pilasters will be constructed along the northern property line. Along the east property line, abutting the La Quinta Storm Water Evacuation Channel, a low flood control wall is proposed to be constructed. ANALYSIS Architectural Design: Staff finds the overall architectural style and design of the proposed La Paloma senior living community to be acceptable. Staff has no significant issues with the proposed main building, cottage units, and common areas. The Desert Contemporary architecture and layout of the project site is for the most part compatible with the surrounding residential land, uses. Because the project site is relatively isolated in terms of proximity to other similar land uses and structures, the architecture and layout of the buildings do stand out from the surrounding built environment. However, supplemental design elements (pop -outs, varying rooflines, etc.) appropriately enhance the buildings by providing sufficient architectural articulation. Also, the height, mass, and scale of the buildings are appropriate for each proposed building location, given the design restrictions of the property. Furthermore, the visual impact of the two-story main building is minimized from view from the existing residential neighborhood to the north (Attachment 1, Sheet A7). The highest part of the main building, the uninhabited tower feature, is set back over 1 50-feet from the 5 northern property line, and review of the northern property line transition plan shows that the cottage units and the segment of the main building closest to the property line have minimal visual impact on the existing residential neighborhood. With regards to the cottage units along the perimeter of the property, staff had some initial concerns with the location, layout, and general purpose of the proposed units. In particular, the placement of cottage units near the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50 as well as the linear design of the units as opposed to a more clustered design was questioned. However, the applicant has stated that the proposed layout is operationally successful and cites other existing senior -living communities that have similar site layouts. Site Design: The design of the vehicular access points, internal circulation, and parking areas is generally acceptable. Staff anticipates the majority of vehicles entering the site will come from the south, by way of the Washington Street main entrance. A deceleration lane will be provided for this entrance. Within the project, all applicable turning radii for large vehicles, load ing/unload ing areas, and pedestrian connectivity meet the La Quinta Municipal Code development standards. The main drive aisle for the project has a clear separation between vehicular and pedestrian paths of travel. The proposed walkway that runs adjacent to the drive aisle that surrounds the main building is sufficient as it provides connectivity throughout the project site. Based on the parking requirements in LQMC Section 9.150.060 and the parking analysis done as part of the review process, staff has determined that the proposed parking area design and spaces provided within La Paloma can accommodate the proposed use. The proposal provides for 246 parking spaces, which well exceeds the 197 parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. This excess of approximately 25% is desired in order to help with peak periods of parking overlap during shift changes and occasional visitor spikes during holidays. The applicant is comfortable with the proposed parking ratios based on extensive experience with this type of land use. The proposed on -site lighting is acceptable as well, as the proposed fixtures are consistent with the City's outdoor lighting ordinance. Pedestrian walkways and entries will be adequately lit using decorative fixtures or landscape lighting. Parking areas will also be sufficiently lit by the strategically -placed poles and carport lights. All lighting will be designed and located so as to confine direct light within the community boundaries. The submitted photometric plan confirms that the project with be properly illuminated, with a lack of excess light and no illuminated hotspots. Some of the proposed water features are central to the design of the community. Such features can be permitted if they meet the City's water efficiency requirements and are approved as part of the project. Staff has provided a Condition of Approval pertaining to 6 these features, requiring energy efficient pumps and staff review to ensure that there will be minimal water loss due to splashing, evaporation, etc. The small-scale water features located around the common areas and courtyards are appropriate in that their placement and scale are beneficial towards the pedestrian atmosphere. However, staff still has some concerns over the necessity of the larger water features, such as the one within the main entrance vehicular courtyard, as their size and location do not promote pedestrian interactivity. Landscaping: In general, the proposed landscape palette is acceptable. The assorted species of plants provide diversity and add character to the proposed buildings. The use of Acacia, Citrus, African Sumacs, as well as Date Palms and Mediterranean and California Fan Palms among others properly reflects the Desert Contemporary architectural style, while providing sufficient screening and accents around the project site, including the parking lot area, pedestrian circulation areas, and outdoor use areas. Staff typically recommends that turf areas not be installed adjacent to paved pedestrian walkways due to possible water waste, and the applicant has satisfied this request. Also, the proposed turf installation near the pool area is acceptable as it will be utilized as an active -use area. Sustainability: The proposed La Paloma community should be an environmentally sustainable community. The project is designed to provide access to public transportation, encourage employee carpool programs, install strategically -placed recycling collections bins, and construct energy -efficient amenities. Furthermore, architectural features, such as color, materials, and shading devices, will also reduce energy demands on the community. Landscaping will also meet or exceed Coachella Valley Water District water budget requirements. RECOMMENDATION That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend approval of Site Development Permit 2003-762 Amendment 1 to the Planning Commission, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1 The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 2. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 3. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent 7 irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 4. Lighting plans shal ' I be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff to minimize trespass of light off the property. The illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 5. All water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 6. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 7. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Director approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justifies an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer. 8. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscap . g and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street riqht =v. Prepared by: JAY W0Q, Assibciate Planner Attachments: 1 . La Paloma Site Development Permit Packet