Loading...
1993 11 03 DRB Minutes MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINT A A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California November 3, 1993 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Vice Chairman Campbell brought the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. and Boardmember Rice led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, David Harbison, Randall Wright, Paul Anderson, Planning Commissioner Adolph, and Vice Chairman Campbell. Boardmembers Wright/ Anderson moved to excuse Chairman Curtis. Unanimously approved. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. Boardmember Wright moved to reorganize the agenda to place Business Item F first on the agenda. Boardmember Harbison seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Tract 23269; a request of Mr. Jim Crowell, Century Crowell Communities (a.k.a. Century Homes) for approval of architectural plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta Highlands tract - La Quinta Del Rey. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa informed the Board that the applicant had requested that the item be withdrawn from the agenda due to the City Council action on November 2, 1993, enacting Interim R-l Ordinance. Notices would be mailed out to the property owners when the item was placed back on the agenda. B. Sign Aoplication 93-228; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of a sign for his La Quinta Sculpture School and Park. DRBll-3 1 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 7. # \). (J)I 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department and informed the Board of the revised conditions. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked staff if the sign was already installed. Staff stated it was installed but covered. 3. Boardmember Rice stated his dislike of the sign as there was too much area between the lines of the letters. The La Quinta needed to be brought down closer with less space between the lines. 4. Mr. Gouthier addressed the Board regarding the sign stating it was a temporary sign for one year and the sample submitted for approval was not a true picture of the sign. Members discussed with Mr. Gouthier the reasons for the sign being installed before approval had been granted. 5. Boardmember Wright asked why the applicant was not installing a permanent sign. Mr. Gouthier stated that the existing sign was in the street easement and would have to be torn down when the street is widened. He further stated he planned on having a competition between the artists to design a permanent sign for the project. Discussion followed regarding the permanent sign size and location. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked what would happen to the monument base that is existing. Mr. Gouthier stated it would be removed along with the trees and fence when the road was widened. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Rice/ Anderson to conditionally approval of Sign Application 93-228, based on the majority of the Board's approval of a polaroid picture of the sign being brought to City Hall for review. Unanimously approved. C. Conditional Use Permit 93-007. Amendment #1; a request of McDonalds Corporation for approval of an amendment to the Conditions of Approval for a conditional use permit which allows construction and operation of a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru lane. DRBll-) 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 2. 4. DRBll-3 Boardmember Rice asked staff why the wall should be deleted. Staff stated the applicant's reasons. 3. Boardmember Anderson asked if a wall was originally conditioned. Staff stated the wall was required because it was a more permanent form of screening. Boardmember Anderson asked how the playground came to be enclosed. Staff stated it was now enclosed with a wall and glass, but the primary purpose of the screen wall originally was to screen the cars in the drive- thru not the playground. 5. Commissioner Adolph stated the meandering sidewalk was not drawn to scale on the plans and he was confused as to how the applicant would have enough room to plant any landscaping and keep a berm. He felt a retaining wall would be needed. 6. Mr. Rob Jenkins, representing McDonalds, addressed the reasons he was requesting the elimination of the wall requirement. 7. Boardmember Anderson agreed that the wall would become a graffiti problem. He stated the screening of the playground was not a problem, but rather the screening of the cars needed to be addressed. He felt berming with tall landscaping could be a solution but there would be a problem between the property line and the sidewalk. Discussion followed regarding the location and slope of the berm. Boardmember Harbison suggested a ground cover that doesn't need to be sprinkled. 8. 9. Commissioner Adolph suggested the applicant build up the curb to hold back erosion. He informed the applicant that when the application came before the Planning Commission he should have cross sections and dimensions on his plans. 10. Boardmember Campbell asked why the applicant felt this wall would be any more of a target for graffiti than any other wall. The applicant stated this wall would be the largest expanse of any of the walls in the center. Discussion followed relative to graffiti problems. 11. Boardmember Wright asked why the playground was moved indoors and when was it approved and by whom. Staff stated this City Council had approved the plans. Discussion followed. 3 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 it C(IIl' \ 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson/Harbison to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit 93-007, Amendment #1, to the Planning Commission as recommended and conditioned by staff. Unanimously approved. Chairman Curtis joined the group and assumed the chair. D. Plot Plan 93-512; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of preliminary landscaping plans, gated entrance, and administration building on 48th Avenue. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. DRBll-3 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Chairman Curtis asked if a wall would be required if the noise study showed that only the administration building needed it. Staff stated they would need to check with the General Plan but believed that only the administration building would be required to be walled. 3. Mr. Chuck Strother, applicant, stated that irregardless of the noise study the administration building would be walled. He further stated he had no objections to Conditions #2-8, but was confused about Condition #1. He went on to explain that he did not intend to use Date Palms in the medians but rather Eucalyptus. He felt the median would be a transition to the landscaping of the desert look to the orchard feeling. Boardmember Anderson stated his approval of the look and thought it was well thought out. Boardmember Harbison stated he felt the palms were a great entry statement. Boardmember Anderson asked if the Eucalyptus would be a problem with the roof system. Mr. Strother stated this was a different variety that was cleaner with less maintenance. Boardmember Harbison explained the maintenance problem with most Eucalyptus was how the tree was irrigated. Discussion followed regarding the different varieties of Eucalyptus. 4 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 8. 9. 10. 11. 14. )":0 o~-:)_" " Chairman Curtis stated his concern that the trees would be too wide and would spill over into the travel way and trimming could be a problem and cause additional maintenance for the City crews. Mr. Strother stated that the Date trees were a bigger maintenance problem. Boardmember Harbison stated his concern that the Eucalyptus might get too tall for the median and recommended a different variety. He further suggested that the double rows be spaced out with a more zig-zag planting. Staff stated the center medians will have to be approved by the Engineering Department and the City landscape architect consultant. Boardmember Wright asked if the lunchroom and restroom doors had been addressed. Mr. Strother stated they would be revised on the plans to separate them. 12. Commissioner Adolph asked about the grey ductwork and if the power poles on Washington Street would be installed underground. Mr. Strother stated he was waiting for the utility company to do so. Commissioner Adolph asked if the power poles on 48th A venue had been removed yet. Mr. Strother stated the high voltage poles from Adams to Jefferson are the only ones to remain. 13. Commissioner Adolph asked if the 12-foot high light pole in the parking area conformed to the Dark Sky Ordinance and whether the applicant could lower the lights. Mr. Strother stated he had no objection with substituting with low bollard-type lights. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson/Rice to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93- 512, subject to staff's recommendations. Unanimously approved. E. Plot Plan 93-511; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of plans for a maintenance building for Rancho La Quinta project. DRBll-3 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 5 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 DRBll-3 2. Board Member Rice expressed his disapproval of the buildings being located so closely to the Boys and Girls Club building. Mr. Strother, applicant, explained that the buildings would be screened from view. He further explained that this location was chosen because of the existing trees and the off street entrance for the workers. He stated there would be a solid wall of trees on the west side that would reach 14-feet high and would help to screen the buildings. Mr. Strother went on to explain the changes that had already been made to ensure the buildings would not be seen from the school site. Discussion followed regarding the distance and landscaping of the wall on the Park A venue side. 3. Board Member Wright asked for clarification of the continuous ridge and whether it would have a vent. 4. Chairman Curtis stated that something would need to be done to soften the wall and to prevent graffiti. It was suggested that "Cats Claw" be planted. 5. Board Member Rice stated he appreciated all the changes the applicant had made to soften and hide the buildings, but he still felt the buildings should be moved to a different location. 6. Board Member Anderson stated he felt that with the changes and landscaping, the buildings would be virtually hidden from site. He then asked what the City planned for the property to the west. Staff stated it would be landscaped at some future time. 7. Board Member Harbison stated that the landscaping on the wall on the west side would need to a rapid growing plant such as the "Cats Claw". 8. Planning Commissioner Adolph asked if the building had double insulated walls to help reduce the noise. Mr. Strother stated both buildings were double insulated. Commissioner Adolph asked if the vents were rotary and where the odors would go. Discussion followed regarding the use of the buildings and the amount of noise that would be generated as well as the type of fertilizers to be stored. Mr. Strother stated that if any odors were generated by the fertilizers they would see that they are taken care of. 9. Commissioner Adolph asked about the gasoline pumps. Mr. Strother stated they were above ground and would be EPA approved. 6 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 10. Board Member Harbison stated that another site would be needed to store green waste. Mr. Strother stated there were plans for a compost site under one of the fairways. II. Board Member Wright asked if the doors on the maintenance building were opening to the east or west. Mr. Strother stated they opened both directions. Board Member Wright asked if there would be a problem with noise during school hours. Mr. Strother stated he did not believe there would be an issue with noise but he really hadn't addressed the issue. Board Member Wright suggested that the doors be insulated in case there was a problem the doors could be closed to cut down the noise. 12. Board Member Wright asked what type of cooling would be used. Mr. Strother stated they would be using slab mounted evaporator coolers. Board Member Wright suggested that evaporator coolers be placed in the fertilizer building as well. Mr. Strother stated he could do that. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Board Members Harbison/Campbell to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-511 to the Planning Commission subject to staff conditions. It was further recommended that staff investigate the status of the City property to help mitigate the aesthetics on the west side and that a rapid growing landscape material be planted to cover the wall. The motion was approved on a 6-1 vote with Board Member Rice voting NO. . F. Plans submittal requirements and developer handouts 1. Staff informed the Board that they would incorporate into the handout, where appropriate, where the Design Review Board would fit into the application process. This revision would be brought back to the Board for their review and comment. 2. Staff further stated that at their next meeting the Board would be reviewing architectural guidelines. Board Member Anderson asked if staff would contact the cities of Santa Barbara and Pueblo Viejo District and obtain copies of their guidelines/standards. Board Member Wright asked that the City of Irvine be contacted as well. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of October 6, 1993. There being no additions or corrections, Boardmembers Campbell/Harbison moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. ORBll-3 7 Design Review Board Minutes November 3, 1993 VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson/Rice to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on December 6, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:25 P.M., November 3, 1993. DRBll-3 8