2011 06 22 ALRC Special MeetingCity of La Quinta
ALRC Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinte.org
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING
REVIEW COMMITTEE
AGENDA
A Special Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall - Study Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JUNE 22, 2011
10:00 A.M.
Beginning Minute Motion 2011-005
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.
111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 1, 2011.
7, : " r , � � � " — ln� I 1�4 � % ;,�� vi-,, � ( — /, 2 — , � S, � � . F,,� hq,!:I�Ia, Z�—/2,— , , .
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ..................
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917
Applicant ...........
Prest Vuksic Architects for Property Owner, City of
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency/Coral Mountain
Partners, L.P.
Location ............
Approximately 660 Feet East of Dune Palms Road,
North of the Desert Sands Unified School District
Administrative Campus.
Request .............
Consideration of Architectural, Site, and
Landscaping Plans for Coral Mountain Apartments,
a 1 76-Unit Multi -Family Affordable Rental Housing
Community.
Action .................
Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute
Motion Recommending Approval, with conditions —
Minute Motion 2011-
V1. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
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 August 3, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
(Commission Dark for July 6, 2011 meeting.)
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 22, 2011, 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, June 16,
2011.
DATED: June 16, 2011
CAROLI eALIE�R)EaxecuAtive�`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
June 1, 2011 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This regular meeting of the Architecture an'd''Landscaping Review
Committee was called to order at 1 01001� by Planning Manager
David Sawyer who led the Committee., iri'' th 111cig salute.
B. Committee Members Present: Jason, Arnold, 'Kevin McCune, and
David Thorns
Committee Member Absent: None
C. Staff present: Planning,, Manager David Sawyer, Associate Planner
Jay Wuu, and Secretary:'Monika Radeva�'.;�
IL PUBLIC COMMENT: None
111. CONFIRMATION OPTHE AGENDA:, Confi
IV. CONSENT
Staff asked here =any changes to the Minutes of April 6, 2011.
There being no :or,. corrections it was moved and seconded by
beril ri� d
Committee Mem is, Ar 6.1 /thorns to approve the minutes as submitted.
Unanimously Approved.
V. BUSINESS]TEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2003-762, Amendment 1, a request
submitted by WSL La Quinta, LLC. for consideration of
Architectural, Site, and Landscaping Plans for La Paloma, a 208-unit
senior living community located at the northeast corner of
Washington Street and Avenue 50.
Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
Department.
'e�-
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
June 1. 2011
Committee Member McCune said he reviewed the plans extensively
and was very pleased with the project and the proposed desert
contemporary architectural style. He said RGA Landscape
Architects, Inc. had done an outstanding job with the plant palette
selection. He suggested the applicant use synthetic turf for the
putting greens to avoid maintenance issues, but he thought that
natural turf should be used for the proposed courtyards.
Committee Member McCune commended th
he fou � pplicant for choosing
to use LED lighting, and he said in the proposed water
features to be adequate and in line'111115iwith the City's water
conservation efforts.
Committee Member McCune sai&h6 found the proposed project to
be beautiful and was very muc in favor of it.
Committee Member Arnold said'h6l 's also very pleased with the
proposed plans and was in agreeme0dwith staff's recommendations
and Committee Member McCune's cc rr�m'ents, as stated above, and
l�l � ", I , ,I. r
was very much in favor,:16f the project as, wall'.
Committee Member Thoms,comnien'ded' staff for the well -written
staff report or'),,the proi said the report was very informative.
He also 'commefided the pr6 , ject architect as he found the proposed
desert contemporary archite4u,Fal style to be well -welcomed in the
City of
";0"'', V
Commi ee, e er Thorns asked if there was exterior access to
the propo"ie'd cou yards, from the outside of the buildings.
Greg IiWin, Partner of IPA Irwin Partners Architects, 245
ier Avenue, Suite # B-2, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, introduced
01,
elf,and' said the courtyards were not accessible from the
1� I ,
cle, :�b6t the doors were aligned in such a way that one could go
igh the building from one side directly to the other.
Committee Member Thorns asked how the turf in the courtyards
would be maintained if there was no exterior access. Mr. Irwin said
the floor surface used in the hallways of the buildings allowed for
lawn mowers and other equipment to be pushed through the
building into the courtyard.
P:\Reports-ALRC\2011\ALRC 6-22-11_SpeciaIMtg�ALRC—DraftMIN-6-1-1l.docx 2
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
June 1. 2011
Committee Member Thorns suggested the applicant use artificial
turf in the courtyards to avoid maintenance issues and water
overspray on the concrete.
Ron Gregory, President of RGA Landscape Architects, Inc., 74020
Alessandro, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92260, introduced himself
and clarified that the applicant was proposing the use of natural turf
only in the main courtyard, as it was much cooler in the summer
and the turf would be more actively used. He noted that artificial
turf would be used in the remaining courtyards. He assured the
Committee that the applicant was aware:6f the difficulties involved
with maintaining the natural turf and was prepared to deal with it as
best as possible. He noted the turf would 61 *ept inimurn 18",
maybe 24" away from the buildings, and ver 11110 -arc sprinkler
heads would be utilized, to mjrtj�'!" 0
I mize the overspr bfj; ater.
General discussion followed rao r,dind"' the advantages and
I
disadvantage of the use of natura
nthetic turf.
Committee Member Th6rhs!,�suggestecl th4�:'aplblicant reconsider the
proposed locations of the t 66$1�,,Jor thei" covered parking areas
Q, , �airn might potentially interfere
located on the east, as som6'of
with the parkih'4� ' spaces. Mir� Gregory'said the suggestion would be
taken into acco'oU'ii , t when finalizing the landscaping plans.
Comm itted Nernbdr,-Thoms asked what material would be used for
thO:Oroperty , I I iOe, wal , I 8n��,th6�:n'orth side of the project. He noted the
propid66d:,wall would create a trapping space between the wall and
the existing':�,resiclefitiaf fences. Mr. Irwin said it would be a block
,,,,,:wall and ex0pined � that the existing fences were not consistent in
aterial and',setbacks; therefore, in order to create a nice clean look
for''41he project, a new wall would have to be built. He explained the
resiae"pts,pould tear down their existing fences and the proposed
wall wo';Ituld become the new consistent property line.
Committee Member Thorns asked if the residents would have to
absorb the demolition costs. Mr. Irwin replied the residents would
have pay to have their existing fences torn down, however, they
would not be incurring any of the cost associated with building the
new proposed wall. He said the applicant had scheduled a meeting
with the residents to discuss any issues and/or concerns.
PAReports - ALRC\201 RALRC 6-22-1 ISpecial Mtg\ALRC_Draft MIN-6-1-1 I.docx 3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
June 1. 2011
Committee Member Thorns suggested the applicant remove the
proposed water feature for the front courtyard. He encouraged the
use of decorative paving to enhance the concrete image of the
walkways and the courtyard. Mr. Gregory replied it was the
applicant's intention to use decorative pavers, however, the details
and materials had not yet been selected.
Committee Member Thoms suggested the facia of the carports be
painted in one of the darker and stronger colors selected for the
buildings to make it stand out and to qioand the color palette
throughout the entire project.
Committee Member Thorns said When 4raveling north on
Washington Street, the project is"visible from a I bi I eds point of view
for part of the way. Therefotia he suggested that', , any equipment
located on the roof be completely screened. Mr. Irwin -replied that
all equipment located on the roof Would, be"completely screened and
that it was the applicant's intektl:�!�jo make the screening an
architectural element' to 1,the build ings'as�� Well.
Committee Member Thoims,:a96 ff to" consult with the traffic
if &�,,u-turn Tte allowed on Washington
,�:: 6
engineer to find out 6 1'
Street frqml�:A%ionue 50 while travelin"i" southbound. He said there
was a left turning lane d , yrrently existing, but no u-turn was
IA
allow'ed'—,
There being 6�6:,,furth eir' dls'�biussion, it was moved and seconded by
Comrnittee: Members Thoms/McCune to adopt Minute Motion 2011 -
004, reco ' nim ending:, a'p'p roval of Site Development Permit 2003-
762, Amendment 1', with staff's recommendations. Unanimously
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE1�MEMBER ITEMS: None.
VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS:
B. Discussion Regarding Summer Meeting Schedule
The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee unanimously agreed
to go dark in the month of July 2011.
P:\Reports-ALRC\20ll\ALRC 6-22-11 Special Mtg\ALRC DraftMIN 6-1-1l.docx 4
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
June 1, 2011
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members McCune/Thoms to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee to a Special Meeting to be held on June 22,
2011. This meeting was adjourned at 10:38 a.m. on June 1, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
MONIKA RADEVA
Secretary
P:\Reports-ALRC\20ll\ALRC 6-22-11 —Special Mtg\ALRC DraftMIN 6-1-1l.docx 5
BI#A
T -low 4 4& 12"
A
OF
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE: JUNE 22, 2011
CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917
APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS
PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CORAL
MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P.
ARCHITECT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.
ENGINEER: MSA CONSULTING, INC.
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND
LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR CORAL MOUNTAIN
APARTMENTS, A 176-UNIT MULTI -FAMILY AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING COMMUNITY
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD,
NORTH OF THE DSUSD ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPUS
ZONING
DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USES:
NORTH:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL / VACANT
SOUTH:
MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES /
DESERT SANDS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX
EAST:
COMMERCIAL PARK RETAIL COMMERCIAL
(COSTCO)
WEST:
COMMERCIAL PARK SELF -STORAGE UNITS
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 is approximately 10 acres in size, and located east of Dune Palms Road,
just north of the Desert Sands Unified School District's administrative and operations
campus (Attachment 1). It constitutes the southern one-half of a 20-acre site owned
currently by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (LQRDA). The project site is bordered
on the north by vacant land within the specific plan (designated for commercial
development), while to the south lies the Desert Sands Unified School District
administration and service facilities, including the District's school bus yard. East of the
site are the existing Komar Center/Costco properties, and to the west an existing self -
storage facility.
PROPOSAL
Project Overview:
The applicant is requesting consideration of the architecture and landscaping plans for
Coral Mountain Apartments, a 1 76-unit multi -family affordable rental housing community.
The project will provide 40 one -bedroom, 82 two -bedroom and 54 three -bedroom units,
along with a 3,660 s.f. community clubhouse and common area recreation, including a
pool, basketball half -court, and children's play area. There are 11 residential buildings; all
are 2-story with the exception of one single story building housing 4 units. Each building
breaks down as follows:
2
Building
1 BR
2 BR
3 BR
TOTALS
A
-0-
4 Units
-0-
4
B
-0-
8 Units
4 Units
12
C
-0-
-0-
8 Units
8
D
8 Units
12 Units
-0-
20
E
-0-
4 Units
1 2_U_nits
-16
F
-0-
__4U -nits
___1_2 -Units
16
G
4 Units
10 Units
2 Unit s
16
H
-0-
4 Units
12 Units
16
J
8 Units
8 Units
-0-
1
L
Wni�,ss
1 6 Un�ils
-0--
24
M
18
2 U ,
ni
12 Units
4 Units
28
TOTALS
40
82
54
176
There are a total of 11 unit floor plans, eight of which will be used on both the first and
second floors of the project (Attachment 3; Sheets UP-1A1 through UP-2D2). The one -
bedroom plans are 698, 743, and 779 s.f., the two -bedroom plans are 926, 943 and
966 s.f., and the three -bedroom plans are 1, 103, 1,116, 1,250 and 1,266 s.f.
Architectural Design:
The applicant proposes a Desert Modern/Contemporary architectural style (Attachment 3;
Sheet AO.00 - refer to sheets for Buildings K, A - E, F&H, G, J, L, M). With the
exception of the project clubhouse and one 4-unit residential building, both at one story,
the project will feature 2-story buildings, all at a maximum height of 26', 6". The
buildings have staggered height lines which differ slightly from each building, allowing
some design variation while maintaining the project's architectural continuity and general
massing. While the building lines primarily demonstrate right angles, there are some
subtle arch and angular variations incorporated, most notably at stairwells, fagade
columns and in the steel awnings. The color palette is similar in tone to that used for the
adjacent Komar Center, but utilizes softer hues. The building exterior walls are a Portland
cement plaster with a dashed finish.
Site and building design is proposed to be "sustainability focused" (Attachment 3; Sheet
AO.02) in an effort to reduce energy and water consumption. As a result, the buildings
incorporate multiple recessed design elements to provide for solar control, as well as to
provide more visual architectural interest. Steel awnings are cantilevered out from above
the second floor balcony/stairwell areas.
Site Design:
A new public road, temporarily identified as "A" Street, will provide access to the
residential project and a connection between Dune Palms Road to the west and the
adjacent Komar Center/Costco to the north and east (Attachment 3; Sheet A1.10). This
roadway is designed as a 30-foot curb -to -curb width, except where it widens to 36 feet
from the main project access, south to the DSUSD access road. The development of "A"
3
Street will also include the construction of a traffic signal at Dune Palms Road. The
project will access "A" Street through its main access on the southwest, and a
secondary access way at the northeast corner of the project. Pedestrian paths will
traverse the residential community, facilitating access to Dune Palms Road and
neighboring commercial developments via "A" Street, which incorporates a 6-foot
sidewalk adjacent to the project frontage. Pedestrian access from the project to 'A'
Street is located at the project's vehicular access points on the northeast and southwest.
The project was originally submitted as a gated entry design, but has recently been
revised to eliminate the gates; this is discussed in more detail in the ANALYSIS section of
this report.
Circulation within the project emanates from the main entry at the southwest of the
project, providing access to two drive aisles which branch off to the north and east.
These aisles provide for parking along them but also lead to larger parking areas interior
to the project; however, the majority of parking stalls for the project are located along
these drive aisles. A total of 352 parking spaces are proposed, including 18 ADA-
accessible spaces (7 covered, 2 van -accessible), and 176 total covered parking spaces.
The steel carport structures are approximately 9' 2" in height, and will be designed to
accommodate future installation of photovoltaic panels (Attachment 3; Sheets CP1.10,
CP1.20).
The proposed lighting plans address parking and common area lighting; no landscape
lighting is shown (Attachment 3; Sheets E-1, E-2). The internal common areas and
vehicular travel and parking areas are lighted by 1 6-foot tall pole lights (includes I 3-foot
pole on 2-foot concrete pedestal) with a modern triangular fixture design and black
matte finish. Build ing-mounted fixtures of the same design and finish will provide area
lighting at buildings. Both fixtures will utilize high-pressure sodium lamps and provide
shielding at the light plane, directed downward (Sheet E-3). The carport lighting will be
dual -lamp ballasts with fluorescent lighting, mounted in the carport beams. It should be
noted that the applicant is also investigating the potential for use of LED lighting
throughout the project.
Landscaping:
Project landscaping consists of primarily desert -compatible low to moderate -water use
plants (Attachment 3; Sheet L-2.00; L-5.00 — L-5.03). There is minimal use of turf
(5.73% of total landscaped area), which has been limited to two potential active use
lawn areas and a basketball half -court. The proposed tree palette includes Rosewood "
Shoestring Acacia, and Tipuanas in multi and single trunk. The shrub palette includes
Agave, Red Bird of Paradise, Bougainvilleas and Lantana, among others. Trailing vines of
Pink Powder Puff and Cape Honeysuckle are shown inside the project's south and east
perimeter wall areas; there are no vines proposed for the wall along 'A' Street.
Groundcover will be decomposed granite, with cobble areas and accent boulders at
various locations. No landscape lighting has been proposed, though the applicant has
indicated that some low-level accent lighting may be provided at the project access
points and along 'A' Street.
4
The landscaped areas that run along 'A' Street are proposed to be landscaped with
Tipuana (24" box @ 1.5 caliper; 36" box @ 3.0 caliper) and Shoestring Acacia trees
(24" box @ 1.5 caliper; 36" box @ 2.5 caliper), The Rosewood trees are specified as
24" box @ 1.25 caliper; 36" box @ 3.0 caliper, and are located internal to the project,
with exception of one tree at the 'A' Street intersection with the DSLISD access road.
The project perimeter along 'A' Street also incorporates a sectional screen wall (Sheet L-
2.02). The wall will be approximately 6' in height, made of painted precision block with
2" precision cap and no pilasters. The wall is designed in reverse curved sections, which
are connected by a short wrought iron fence between each curved section of wall.
Short sections of block wall will be placed on the south property line, at openings
between Buildings A, B and C, and connecting with the existing east block wall. These
section walls are shown as being 20' in height, but may be reduced based on a final
acoustical evaluation to be conducted.
An existing block wall along the east property line separates the Costco building from the
site, and will remain in place and be planted with trailing vines as shown on the
landscaping plans.
ANALYSIS
Project revisions:
Certain project revisions and information clarifications have been submitted, based on
staff review comments and changes instituted by the applicant (Attachment 2):
• Deletion of project access gating;
• Minor correction and clarification of items as requested by staff.
Several of these items are unrelated to ALRC review items, and constitute minor
corrections or items that can be addressed through approval conditions. The gates have
been removed by the applicant to minimize costs and provide less restrictive a r ccess to
the project (Attachment 2; Revised Sheet L-2.02). The main entry has been redesigned to
remove the rejection turn -around elements and make the corresponding median
modifications. Staff does not have any issue with removal of these gates.
Staff has suggested several items to the applicant to be incorporated into the project,
including the use of LED lighting, and addition of a small interactive water feature (similar
to what is at Wolff Waters). The applicant is taking these under consideration but at
present they have not been incorporated. Staff has recommended that these items, if
incorporated after project approval, not constitute a need to amend the SDP.
There had been discussion of,adding transom -style windows to the project at the south
elevations for Buildings B and C. However, the sound level criteria and design of the.
5
buildings may make this infeasible. In the event that the applicant later determines that
windows can be incorporated, staff recommends a provision to be added that would
allow for an administrative review of such a revision, without the need for an amendment
to the SDP.
Architectural Design:
Staff has no issues with the overall architectural style and design of the proposed
project. The Desert Modern/Contemporary architectural style and layout of the project
site is compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses, most notably in relation to
the Komar Center. The project site essentially constitutes infill development, being
generally surrounded by other land uses and structures; as such the massing and height
of the overall project are not out of character with the surrounding built environment. In
addition, there is no unifying architectural theme or elements common to the existing
commercial structures, as all were approved and constructed years apart as separate
projects. However, the architectural elements (cantilevered metal awnings, varying
rooflines and facade/columns, etc.) enhance the architectural style of the project by
providing an appropriate architectural articulation within the project, as well as to
enhance the distinction of the project design from the surrounding structures. Given that
this is a residential land use surrounded by commercial and institutional uses, there is a
certain amount of architectural variation that will occur between them.
Staff does have concerns with the 20-foot high wall sections proposed at Buildings B
and C, along the south project boundary at the DSUSD access road. These wall sections
are proposed at that height to address preliminary findings associated with the
acoustical analysis in the EIR. Staff would prefer these to be reduced as much as
possible, in order to break up the height line along the south elevations, and has
proposed a recommendation to lower these sections to the extent feasible, based on a
final acoustical study to be prepared during the 6uilding permit process. There is also an
issue where the easterly wall section will need to join with the existing wall on the east
project boundary, which is about 8 to 10' high at the southeast corner of the property.
Site Design:
The design of vehicular access points, internal circulation, and parking areas is generally
acceptable. Within the project, all applicable turning radii for large vehicles 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, as all units are
separated from vehicle travel and parking areas by pedestrian walkways. While a
sidewalk has been provided along 'A' Street, the limiting of pedestrian access to the
project entries allows residents to get to shopping or transportation by walking through
the project, arguably a more secure route.
The Specific Plan for the project calls for a minimum of 2 parking stalls per unit,
requiring a total of 352 stalls, and which have been provided. The LQMC requires
parking areas of 5 or more spaces to be 50% shaded by landscaping; any shade
6
structures may be credited for up to 50% of the shading requirement. The project
provides 176 covered spaces, or 50% of the total spaces, therefore, staff has
determined that landscaped shading must address 25% of the overall parking area.
While it appears that the tree canopies proposed in the landscape plan will meet this
standard, the applicant will need to provide verification of plan compliance during final
landscape plan review. The applicant will be required to provide bicycle racks, in
accordance with the approved Specific Plan.
The proposed on -site lighting design and proposed fixtures are consistent with the City's
outdoor lighting ordinance. Pedestrian walkways and entries will be adequately lit using
decorative pole -mounted fixtures. Parking areas will also be sufficiently lit by pole
lighting and carport lights. All lighting will be designed and located so as to confine
direct light within the community boundaries. The submitted photometric plan
(Attachment 3; Sheets E-1, E-2) confirms that the project will be properly illuminated,
with a lack of excess light wash and no illuminated hotspots. Staff does believe that the
use of the triangular A and B fixture design should be re-evaluated, and has
recommended that at least one alternative fixture design be submitted with the final
lighting plan.
Staff has discussed with the applicant the potential to incorporate an active water
feature as part of the recreational amenities. This discussion came about due to
concerns that have been expressed by management of the Wolff Waters complex, that
the pool area for that project is undersized. While the applicant claims that the pool is
adequately sized for this project, staff believes that a small recreational water feature
would provide an additional recreation option, and would alleviate any potential
overcrowding of the pool and other play areas. At this time, the applicant has stated an
interest in exploring this as an option. Such features can be permitted if they meet the
City's water efficiency requirements.
Landscaping:
In general, the proposed landscape palette is acceptable. The adopted Specific Plan that
encompasses this project does not include a plant palette, but does set forth general
guidelines for the design of landscaped areas. The type and number of plant species
selected maintain design continuity, while the planting plans avoid a repetitive use of the
selected plants. The use of the.plant palette 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.
Turf areas constitute less than 6% of total landscaped area, accounted for almost
entirely in areas for active recreational use.
Staff does have a concern with the consistency of landscaping improvements between
the project landscaping along 'A' Street, and the retention basin to the west. Staff is
suggesting that some of the landscaping along 'A' Street be revised to include additional
plantings that reflect those used in the retention basin landscape design; i.e., replacing
some of the trees with Palo Verde. Staff had also expressed concern with use of the
7
Dalbergia Sissoo (Indian Rosewood) trees, due to potential for invasive and damaging
root systems. However, the applicant has indicated that these trees are located with
adequate space to accommodate the root system. The applicant is proposing calipers of
1.25 to 1.5 for the 24" box trees; staff would recommend that a minimum caliper of 2.0
be provided for all 24" box specimens
There are also two additional areas that need to be addressed by the landscape plans.
One is an approximately 6' x 380' strip of land along the west side of A Street, between
the curb and existing self -storage building; the other is the strip of land on the south side
of the project, between Buildings B and C and the north side of the DSUSD access road.
The strip along 'A' Street has been a point of discussion during review of the project, and
the City would like to see this landscaping installed by the developer as it is within the
project boundary; however, maintenance is an issue because irrigation would then need
to be extended from the project, underneath 'A' Street. As this strip of land would be
more efficiently maintained by extending irrigation from the City -maintained retention
basin landscaping, the City and applicant have been discussing an approach to address
maintenance of this area, and that discussion is ongoing.
The southerly strip along the DSUSD access road is also a maintenance -related issue, as
the roadway east of Building A will be gated and fenced, and the developer will not be
able to access this strip to do any maintenance. Staff suggests the developer be required
to install decomposed granite, or similar suitable inert groundcover, to give a permanent
finish to the area without a need for any future ongoing maintenance.
Sustainability:
The proposed Coral Mountain Apartment community will incorporate numerous
environmentally sustainable concepts and efficiency measures (Sheet E-4, Attachment
3). While it is not seeking LEED certification, it is being designed to target LEED Silver
standards. Design of the buildings includes many energy and water -efficient amenities,
such as solar tubes to provide indoor area lighting for many of the units, low -flow toilets
and fixtures, and recirculating water heaters. A hydronic HVAC system will be
employed, which circulates hot water from the water heating system, using forced air to
heat the individual units. Four of the buildings will incorporate roof -mounted photovoltaic
solar panels, with the carport structures designed to bear additional panels in the future.
Additionally, architectural elements such as color, materials, and solar control design will
also help reduce energy demands on the community. Landscaping will also be required to
meet or exceed Coachella Valley Water District water budget requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee recommend approval of Site
Development Permit 2011-917 to the Planning Commission, subject to inclusion of the
following recommendations:
12
All new and modified landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in
compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations (LQMC
Section 8.13; Water Efficient Landscape).
2. The landscape plans submitted for final review shall be revised to incorporate
Palo Verde trees along Street 'A', intermittently among the Tipuana and
Shoestring Acacia trees.
3. All 24" box tree specimens shall be sized at a minimum 2.0 caliper.
4. The applicant/developer shall make provision to include the approximately 6' x
380' strip of land on the west side of 'A' Street into the final landscape plans
for the project. Responsibility for maintenance shall be determined during the
final landscape plan review process.
5. The applicant/developer shall provide an inert groundcover, such as
decomposed granite or similar, in the strip of land between Buildings B and C
and the north curb line of the DSUSD access road. This shall be accomplished
as part of the project landscaping improvements.
6. The applicant shall submit'a Final Landscape Plan application (FLP) for review,
processing and approval to the Planning Department. Lighting plans shall be
submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the
Planning Director for his approval. All exterior lighting shall be consistent with
LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All lighting shall not exceed 16
feet in height, as measured from the light source, in accordance with SP 2008-
085. The photometric plan shall not exceed 9.9 lumens at any point on the
project site. The lighting plan shall include at least one alternative wall and
pole -mount fixture designs for lighting fixtures A and B.
7. The City has suggested several items that the applicant/developer is
considering for inclusion as part of the proposed project:
• A small interactive water feature
• Incorporation of LED lighting
• Window additions to Buildings B and C
It is acknowledged by the City that any or all of these items may be included
in the final landscaping, building, or other plans submitted for review, and shall
not constitute a need for amendment of this SDP approval.
8. All carport lighting fixtures shall be mounted and/or partially shielded so as to
maximize diffusion of direct lighting, and shall not create any exposed light
source(s).
9. Bicycle racks shall be provided as required by the approved SP 2008-085 and
9
the applicable provisions of the LQMC.
10. The height of the wall sections along the south Building B and C elevations
shall be reduced to the fullest possible extent, based on findings of a final
acoustical evaluation to be prepared during the building permit review process.
In no case shall these wall sections exceed 20 feet in height. Adequate
provision shall be made to address height transition for the wall section join at
the southeast corner with the existing east property line wall.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Location
2. Summary of revisions submitted 6/9/11
3. Coral Mountain Apartments Site Development Permit Packet
10
ATTACHMENT t
HWY 111
--------- - ---
COMMERCIAL
P.
-- --------------
E
0
CL.
RESIDENTIAL
SDP'201 1-917
-----------------
MN
L
May 20, 2011
Mr. David Drake
Prest Vuksic Architects
44530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200
Palm Desert CA 92260
ATTACHMENT 2,
vece ived
JUN AX 9 2oll
Cily WL0 Qinta
Planning Departn6nt
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917
Coral Mountain Apartments — Design Review Comments
Dear Mr. Drake:
This letter is provided in order to formally follow-up with all comments received to date
in regard to the subject application. While comments from other City Departments and
outside agencies have been provided to you previously on an informal basis, the
purpose of this letter is to provide Planning Department comments, in conjunction with
an overview of all commentary provided to date on the project. The deadline for agency
and City Department comments was May 17, 2011. As you know, Public Works is
continuing to conduct their review of the project in light of their requirements, toward
approval for entitlement (i.e. condition preparation). As their review process is ongoing,
additional comments will be provided as that process continues.
With regard to review of the proposal for significant design issues, the Planning
Department has prepared the following design review comments
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Desicin Comments:
All parking areas shall meet minimum parking facility design standards as set forth
in Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the LQMC, including parking space dimensions,
drive aisle dimensions, turning radii, carport support clearances, etc. All Parking
areas will meet minimum parking facility design standards as set forth in
Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the LQMC. Dimension will be added to drawings
prior to construction documents.
The south project entry is shown for a gated design; however, there has been
discussion that this entry may not be gated. Please clarify whether the plans
represent the final design for this entry. Also, please provide material to be used
for the entry hardscape pattern shown. Entry Gates will be removed at both
entrances, an exhibit will be provided as an addendum for ARC, Planning
Commission and City Council.
3. Staff has discussed whether a second play area should be provided, and has
concerns about the pool as designed being large enough to accommodate
resident demand. It may be desirable to investigate including an interactive water
feature to provide an alternative opportunity, which could ease demand on both
the play area and the pool.
It is understood that the water feature is only a staff suggestion and not a
12
requirement or condition. However, the Design Team is investigating
creating a small water feature utilizing water pressure only, grade level
sprays, concrete finished basin, manually/timer actuated and discharged as
waste water. Second, the pool is adequately sized for its intended use.
4. Bike racks shall be provided within the project at appropriate locations, as called
for in the adopted Specific Plan.
Bike racks will be provided. Please note as a "Conditions of Approval".
5. Sound wall sections of 20 feet in height, shown at Buildings B and C, may need to
be reduced. Please clarify the wall condition proposed along the east property line
of the project.
A final acoustical evaluation of the design will be done by an. acoustical
consultant. Consultant select is the same consultant who did the first study.
It is our goal to reduce the wall height as much as possible while
maintaining the required sound attenuation. If possible the 20ft high wall will
be reduced. Per our discussions please note the wall, not to exceed 20ft as
part of "Conditions of Approval".
Plan Information:
6. Sheet A2.00M — The table lists a total of 10, one -bedroom units at 779 s.f. each,
while it appears that 8 are actually shown. Please clarify and verify total units
shown with Sheet AO.00.
Design Team will correct prior to final submittal package to Planning
Commission.
7. Sheets A1.10, C-1.10 & C-1.02 — Site and Civil plans needs to clearly delineate
property boundaries and dimensions.
Design Team will pick up prior to final submittal package to Planning
Commission.
8. Sheet A2.1 0 — Sheet applies to Building G but table references Building E.
Design Team will pick up prior to final submittal package to Planning
Commission.
9. Please double-check all sheets for additional formatting, spelling, and grammatical
errors (e.g., misspelling of 'accessible' under Parking Data, Sheet AO.00; 'school'
misspelled on Sheet L-2.00).
Design Team will pick up prior to final submittal package to Planning
Commission.
13
10. Sheet L-2.00 — The shade structure is mislabelled as 'Recreation Bldg' and does
not reflect its canopy roof plan view. This comment also applies in part to Civil and
Site Plans. Design
Design Team will pick up prior to final submittal package to Planning
Commission.
Landscaping/Lighting:
11. All trees are to be sized by caliper; a minimum 2" caliper for 24" box trees and 2.5"
caliper for 36" box trees.
Design Team will pick up prior to final submittal package to Planning
Commission.
12. Use of the Dalbergia Sissoo (Indian Rosewood) species should be reevaluated,
due to their potential for invasive and damaging root systems over time.
Trees are located in areas where adequate room is provided for mature root
growth.
13. It is unclear why the multi and single trunk Tipuana trees are called out separately
on the plant palette but not distinguished graphically.
Tree symbol on preliminary plan is representative for both. Specific symbols
will be created for construction documents.
14. Staff suggests that use of LED lighting be considered in the landscape and
building lighting plans, along with lighting fixtures which better disperse light.
Bollard -type lighting should be considered along internal walkway areas.
With the continual rapid advancement in performance of LED lighting as well
as the slight reduction of cost for the fixtures, we will continue to investigate
LED lighting products and will highly consider their use for landscape and
building lighting.
Bollard type light fixtures would not be our preferred fixture type for walkway
areas as the low level placement of the lamp limits the distance of light
throw from the fixture and would require approximately twice as many
fixtures than a post top mounted fixture. Furthermore, it has been our
experience that the lesser quality bollard fixtures become a maintenance
issue for the property management as they are prone to vandalism when set
in an apartment style application.
15. Carport lighting fixtures should be mounted and/or partially shielded so as to
maximize diffusion of direct lighting.
"We will comply"
14
16. Sheet E-3 — Specify the lamp types to be used for all proposed fixtures A, B and
C.
Fixture types 'A' and 'B' would utilize a high pressure sodium lamp, and
fixture type 'C' would utilize a fluorescent type lamp. Please note that
dependent upon our investigation of LED lighting (as noted in response to
comment 14), these fixtures may all switch to LED lighting.
17. It is unclear if landscaping shown at the adjacent DSUSD retention area, to the
west of the project site, is proposed with this project. This area is not reflected on
Sheet L-2.00. Landscaping plans will also need to address the ±6 foot strip of land
along the west side of "A" Street, between the curb line and the self -storage
building.
Per our meeting this is still under discussion between the City and the
Developer.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
No design -related comments from Public Works have been provided to date. Their
latest correction memo, which was transmitted and received by your office on May 16,
2011, is enclosed for reference. Currently, the City Traffic Engineer is reviewing the
precise Grading and Site Plans for traffic -related comments, which should be provided
to Planning early in the week of May 23. As previously stated, the project review
process through Public Works is ongoing, and further comments may be forthcoming
pending receipt of information from your design team, as requested under the May 16,
2011 memo from Public Works.
Please contact the Public Works Department with any questions regarding these
comments and any dedication and/or improvement requirements which may be
necessary.
Last round of response have been submitted back by MSA on, May 27, 2010 Friday
for Public Works review.
FIRE DEPARTMENT / BUILDING AND SAFETY
Riverside County Fire Department comments are enclosed, as are as previously
transmitted to your office on May 10, 2011. Please contact Jason Stubble, Fire Safety
Specialist with Riverside County Fire, at 760-863-8886. If you have not already done
so, it is strongly suggested you follow up with Mr. Stubble in regard to whether any
requirements of his letter affect the project design as currently proposed.
We have been in contact with the RCFD several times through the project. Letter
was passed along to Civil as well. We are in the process of contacting Mr.
Stubble regarding comments.
While Building and Safety did not provide any review comments, it is strongly
suggested you follow up with Mr. Greg Butler, Building and Safety Department, in
regard to whether any UBC or other local building code requirements could affect the
15
project design as currently proposed.
We have been in contact with Building Department several times throughout the
design process. We will continue to stay in contact as we move into construction
documents.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
Staff requested comments from the following agencies:
• Burrtec
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (11D)
• Southern California Gas Company (SCG)
• Verizon
• Time Warner (TWC)
• Sunline Transit
• Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD)
• United States Postal Service (USPS)
• Desert Recreation District
I have sent Wally Nesbit emalls of the agencies we have contacted. As we moved
into our preliminary design our design team contacted most of these agencies
ourselves. The Design Team has been in contact with the following agencies:
Burrtec, CVWD, 1113, SCG, DSUSD, USPS. As noted below, City'has contacted
Time Warner and Desert Recreation District. We will continue to stay in contact
with each agency as we move into construction documents.
As previously noted, the comment deadline was on 5/17/2011. Staff received
comments from CVWD, Time Warner and Desert Recreation District; their responses
are attached. Any late responses received from other agencies will be forwarded to you
upon receipt.
In order to maintain our scheduling commitments, you will need to provide your
response to this comment letter by June 10, 2011.
Should you have questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned at 760-
777-7069 or via e-mail at wnesbit��Ia-quinta.org.
Very truly yours,
Wallace H. Nesbit
Principal Planner
Encl.
16
m Oman
.LISIHXa ktdJLNa (3aSlAald
--1140, JL JL I C-11 lor CA C3
smsnoH 31BYaHO:I:IV NIVINnon ivEjop
XG
7A
,7A
xdi-z
o
It
L I
loll
S... I
Mau
IMEM,
M
.291501t
I lip
IT
IM
i OWN@
41-d
ri UN 6 AV