1993 08 04 DRB Minutes
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
August 4, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Curtis brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Department
Secretary Betty Sawyer led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, David Harbison, Randall Wright, James
Campbell, Planning Commission Representative ElIson, and Chairman Curtis.
Boardmembers Harbison! Anderson moved to excuse Boardmember Rice.
Unanimously approved.
B.
Staff present:
Trousdell and
Sawyer.
Planning Director Jerry Herman, Associate Planners Greg
Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty
III. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Public Use Permit 93-016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of
architectural plans for the La Quinta Sculpture Park, located at 57-325 Madison
Street, north of 58th A venue.
I. 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.
2. Boardmember Campbell asked if the Board was approving the entire
project or just Phase I. Staff clarified the entire project was for their
review and approval.
3.
Mr. Bernardo Gouthier spoke briefly on his project. Commissioner
Wright asked what the exterior texture would be and if the railings would
be constructed during the first phase. Mr. Gouthier stated they had
DRB8-4
1
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
DRB8-4
eliminated the aluminum and the railings would not be built in the first
phase. Mr. Stan Pollakusky, architect for the project, explained what the
first phase would consist of.
4.
Boardmember Harbison clarified that the portion that was originally
brushed aluminum was now to be stucco. Boardmembers questioned why
the change. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt staff and the Boardmembers were
concerned that the aluminum was causing some concern. Mr. Pollakusky
stated the stucco allowed them to soundproof the building as well as give
them some versatility in color.
5.
Boardmember Anderson asked if stucco was to be used would the diagonal
braces and standing ribs go away. Mr. Pollakusky stated they would
remain as they are part of the structure. Boardmember Anderson stated
he would like to see the metal used. He felt the stucco would detract and
weaken the concept of the building. Mr. Gouthier stated they would
prefer to use the metal. It was suggested that micro zinc be used.
6.
Boardmember Anderson stated his concern how the applicant could
construct the building with some of the two story elements being built
after the first story. He asked if the building would be built in phases.
Mr. Gouthier stated he hoped to build Phase two in approximately nine
months. Boardmember Anderson was concerned that the first phase was
only going to be box with no detail and lack any design character. Mr.
Gouthier stated they hoped to be open in October in order to have the
school in operation. Discussion followed regarding the transition of
building the first phase to the second phase.
7.
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any objections to the staff conditions.
Mr. Gouthier pointed out that he was having a problem receiving his mail.
He lives in La Quinta but his mail is delivered by the Thermal post office.
Staff clarified that they have been trying to solve this problem and it is in
the process.
8.
Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant could incorporate the columns
into the first phase. Mr. Pollakusky stated that he could articulate the
building to make it interesting until the second phase is constructed.
9.
Boardmember Anderson stated this was a problem for the Board as they
were not looking at what they were asked to approve. The Board needed
to see the proposed building to be built.
2
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
10.
11.
12.
13.
DRB8-4
Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant would have any problem
with a condition that required the entire building to be built within nine
months after completion of Phase I. Mr. Gouthier stated this could be a
hardship on him and he would prefer that the condition read completion
before December, 1994. Mr. Gouthier stated he did not want to over
extend himself.
Boardmember Campbell stated that there was a portion of the building that
was not seen on the drawings. Mr. Pollakusky stated he could submit
drawings showing the different elevations.
Chairman Curtis stated he would prefer to see drawings of the Phase I
building. Mr. Pollakusky stated he would have no problem submitting a
design for the Board review.
Boardmember Anderson asked what landscaping was proposed for the
building. Mr. Gouthier stated the landscaping was already there.
Boardmember Harbison stated the adjoining property owners should be
screened from view. He suggested that trees be planted along the
perimeter. Mr. Gouthier stated he had already started planting Eucalyptus
trees. Chairman Curtis stated the applicant would need to submit a
landscaping plan before he could receive a building permit therefore, it
would be to his advantage to submit the plans as soon as possible in order
to meet his October deadline.
14.
Boardmember Wright stated he saw no reason why the first phase building
could not stand alone. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt there was some
confusion as to what was to be built in Phase 1. He went on to explain
that the caretakers facility would be constructed in Phase 1. Members
discussed what would be built in Phase 1.
15.
Based on the lack of information and drawings, Boardmember Anderson
moved to recommend the Planning Commission refer this project back to
the Design Review Board in order to review the Phase I building only.
Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and discussion followed
regarding the portion to be constructed in Phase 1. Staff clarified the
hearing process before the Planning Commission and Design Review
Board for the Board. It was determined the matter could go to the
Planning Commission as a business item only for a referral back to the
Design Review Board, but a public hearing for the Planning Commission
to act on the project could not be held until September 14, 1993.
3
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
"
P'\.)'
1""\1)
16,
Boardmember Campbell stated he had strong objections to react to plans
without seeing all four sides,
17,
After further discussion on the review process, Board members
Anderson/Wright withdrew the motion and moved to approve Public Use
Permit 93-016 with a recommendation that separate drawings be
completed for Phase I and Phase II and if the Planning Commission so
desire to refer the project back to the Design Review Board, subject to the
Conditions of Approval with the addition of a non-reflective alternative
metal be submitted. The motion passed unanimously,
B. Plot Plan 93-502 and Chanfie of Zone 91-066; a request of Jascorp for approval
to develop a 124 unit one and two story apartment complex on the west side of
Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel/Washington Street
bridge and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico, along with a change of zone from
R-I, R-2, and C-P to R-2,
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
DRBB-4
L
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to
staff. Staff stated they were,
Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the
project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the
Conditions of ApprovaL Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be
applying to for a variance to the parking requirement.
Boardmember Wright asked for clarification on the variance. Mr.
DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third
parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door.
Discussion followed regarding the parking space,
Commissioner Ellson asked what the market would be, apartments or
condominiums, The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums
but they have not filed a subdivision map with staff.
Boardmember Wright asked if they would be low income, Mr. DeCoster
stated they would be affordable units (i.e" low and moderate income
units),
4
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
7.
8.
9.
DRB8-4
Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's
shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone.
Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units
and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred
an open landscaped area that would give a more open feeling for the green
belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the
low income group which normally have children and the fencing would
give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for
block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing.
Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was
not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck
entry. Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and
therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember
Wright asked if the second entrance would be a crash gate. Staff stated
it would be.
Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or
a metal (roll-up vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough
clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr.
DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll-up because they were attractive
but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough
distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the
street. Discussion followed regarding the garage door type and material.
10.
Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the
two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the
recreation building should be single story so not to create a cavity effect.
Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units.
11.
Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be
a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to
the wall on the east side of Washington Street. Mr. DeCoster stated it
would be a block wall but he felt the 20-feet of landscaping would be
more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., tile cap). Following
discussion, the Board determined the 20-feet oflandscaping was preferable
to the tile treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall
would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would
be used for the perimeter areas.
12.
Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be
at the entrance. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there
5
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding
different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be
widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g., 36-feet
wide).
13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the wood fencing between
the units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly
relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than
this would detract from the overall look of the project. Mr. DeCoster
stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that
have been constructed in other projects have been attractive.
14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20-feet
of landscaping is included in the 30-foot setback. Staff stated it was
incl uded.
15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers
Anderson/Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff
conditions, and as amended as follows:
a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations
for the half two story half one story unit for their approval.
b. Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be
stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile.
c. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of
Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco
color on Washington Street.
d. The driveway should be 36-feet wide on Washington Street with
two lanes in and one lane out.
VOTE:
"
n'), I) I
-.- <'
A YES: Board members Anderson, Harbison, Wright,
Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning
Commissioner Elison. ABSENT: Boardmember Rice.
ABSTAINING: None.
C. Plot Plan 93-505; a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans
for single family residences, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, east of
Adams Street.
1.
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
DR88-4
6
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
DRB8-4
2.
There being no questions of staff, Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President
Forecast Homes gave a presentation of the project.
3.
Commissioner ElIson asked what the price range would be. Mr.
Strickland stated they had not been finalized but planned on a range of
$102,900 to $128,000. Planning Commissioner ElIson asked what the
name of the project would be. Mr. Strickland stated it would be called
"New Beginnings" as most of their buyers were first time buyers.
4.
Boardmember Wright expressed his concern that the existing property
owners would have their property values affected. He felt the new homes
should be graduated in and make a slow transition to the smaller homes.
Mr. Strickland stated he was required by law to offer 10% of the smallest
plan (Plan #2) as this was their entry level product. Discussion followed
as to which lots should have the larger homes.
5.
Boardmember Anderson asked if the existing property owners would be
notified of the changes. Staff stated they would be notified of the August
24th Planning Commission meeting but it is not a requirement.
6.
Boardmember Anderson stated the river rock veneer was not appropriate
for La Quinta. Mr. Strickland stated he would use the veneer on the
northern portion of the project. Boardmember Anderson asked if there
was a stone veneer that is "culture" with a warmer shade than the cold
slate grey shown on the sample board. The applicant stated he would look
for something more earthy in the warmer colors for the homes adjacent
to Phase I.
7.
Boardmember Wright questioned the 18" overhang and dual glazing on the
windows. Boardmember Anderson also stressed the importance of the
building overhangs. Mr. Strickland stated there was dual glazing and he
would have a small overhang.
8.
Boardmember Campbell stated the river rock veneer was not a desert
product. He would prefer a different material such as slumpstone, tile,
etc. Mr. Strickland stated he would talk to his marketing people but he
would not use the tile as their company does not use this type of material
on their homes.
9.
Chairman Curtis asked how many of the smaller units would be built and
what was the square footage of the units. Mr. Strickland stated he was
required to have 10% of the units in his smaller home design if it was
7
Design Review Board Minutes
August" 4, 1993
offered, as required by law. Plan #2 was 1100 square feet and Plan #3
was 1237 square feet.
10. Commissioner Elison stated she would like the units to be a minimum of
1,200 square feet. Mr. Strickland discussed the different type of units
they build and the reason for the I, 106 square foot house size. Chairman
Curtis asked if the applicant would object to the Board placing a minimum
number of these units in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strickland
stated he would prefer to have the flexibility to sell what the market is
asking for. Discussion followed as to what other developments were
offering regarding unit sizes. It was stated that La Quinta Del Rey offers
a similar type home size to their request.
II. Commissioner Elison questioned the use of the half round windows on the
right side and rear elevation regarding the amount of heat they allow in.
The applicant stated they were designed to add light to the dining rooms.
12. Boardmember Campbell asked about the multi-pane windows. Mr.
Strickland stated they were metal inserts painted white.
13. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Harbison/Campbell
moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-505 subject to the
conditions with the following conditions being added:
a. The deletion of Condition #8.
b. Lot 2 would be either a Plan 5 or 6; lot 96 would be a Plan 6; Lot
100 would be a Plan 5; lot 101 would be a Plan 6; and lot 116
would be a Plan 5.
c. The yellow area which contains lots 6, 7, 74-80, 102-104, 114,
and 115 would only contain Plans 4, 5, or 6 to allow a transition
from the existing tract (Phase I).
c. No dark colors will be allowed on lots 2, 6, 7, 74-80, 99-104, or
114-116.
d. An alternate desert tone to be offered in-lieu of the river rock.
e. The elimination of Condition #10.
. -,
if'.]") Unanimously approved.
D.
Soecific Plan 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of
architectural elevations for residential units located on the east side of Washington
street south of 48th A venue within "The Orchard" project.
DRB8-4
8
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department. He presented revised units with sizes slightly different from
the submitted plans.
2.
Mr. Chuck Strother gave a presentation of the units proposed. Chairman
Curtis asked how the units would be mixed. Mr. Strother stated the styles
would be grouped together with the mix of the different sizes.
3.
Boardmember Wright asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strother
stated the largest unit would sell for $399,000, the tennis units $160-
175,000, and the 1800 square foot model $219,000.
4.
Boardmember Campbell stated his concern about the applicant using
simulated materials instead of the authentic materials. Mr. Strother stated
that the authentic materials made the project exceed their intended costs
and the decision was made to reduce material costs and spend the money
on the public building.
5.
Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any concern regarding the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strother stated he did not.
6.
Boardmembers Anderson and Planning Commissioner Elison moved and
seconded a motion to recommend approval of the revised plans for
Specific Plan 84-004, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved.
E. Specific Plan 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of
preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage south of 48th
Avenue within "The Orchard" project.
DRB8-4
1.
Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2.
Boardmember Anderson asked if the citrus would be used similar to his
other project where they are individually irrigated. Mr. Strother stated he
would be utilizing the citrus from the south side of his property and would
be planted the same way. Boardmember Harbison asked if they were
mature trees. Mr. Strother stated they were. Commissioner Elison asked
if the fruit would be harvested. Mr. Strother stated he would not. They
would be available for the homeowners.
9
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
3. Boardmember Wright asked when the project would start. Mr. Strother
stated they were in the process now. Bids were out and they hopes to
have the main street paved and landscaped by Thanksgiving.
4. Boardmember Harbison asked what the length would be for the lawn strip
at the corner for the street curb. Mr. Strother stated it would be
approximately 25-30 feet coordinating with meandering sidewalk. They
proposed to be 8-12 foot meander but they will work this in conjunction
with the trees as well as the Imperial Irrigation District transformer box
locations.
5. Boardmember Harbison stated he felt the use of the Aptenia ground cover
would not survive the summer well as there was to much sun exposure.
The applicant stated he would look into an alternate and asked for any
suggestions the Board would recommend. Boardmember Harbison asked
if lawn would be planted around the citrus and what type of irrigation
would be used. He stressed that water was not to be thrown onto the trees
and large headers around each of the trunks and individually irrigation the
trees and irrigate the grass separately. Mr. Strother stated they were
aware of the problem and plans will be made to cover the irrigation
problems.
6. Commissioner Ellson questioned Condition #1 regarding the landscaping
to work with Pare La Quinta. Mr. Strother stated his landscape architect
would be working to make the two sides compatible.
7. Boardmember Harbison noticed Condition #2 Oleanders are to be used
and it should be stated they be dwarf Oleanders. Discussion followed as
to where to use each type of the Oleanders.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Board members Campbell/Anderson to recommend approval of the
preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage for
Specific Plan 84-004, subject to conditions with the amendment to
Condition #2 that the meandering sidewalk be approved by staff.
Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 2, 1993.
Commissioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission Representative be corrected
to read Commissioner Adolph. Boardmember Campbell asked that the word "weld" on
DRBB-4
10
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
page 10, last paragraph be deleted. There being no further corrections, Boardmembers
Campbell/Harbison moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 23, 1993.
Boardmember Campbell asked that Page 2, third line the word "only" be added to read
".. . like it was only designed to hid...". Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson moved and
seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 7, 1993.
There being no additions or corrections, Boardmembers Campbell/Anderson moved and
seconded a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. OTHER-
A. Chairman Curtis asked if staff had received information from all the
Boardmembers regarding the rewriting of Board Guidelines. Staff stated almost
everyone had submitted material. Boardmember Harbison stated he was working
on landscaping guidelines but had not submitted them as of yet. Following
discussion, members asked staff to agendize the guidelines so if there was time
they could continue to work on the guidelines.
B. Boardmember Campbell expressed his disappointment with the Planning
Commission disregarding the entire Board's recommendation to see a guardhouse
of better quality. In addition, he expressed his concern for so much advertising
banners for the Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor. Staff stated they had received
Council approval for the signs for a "Grand Opening". Otherwise they were
allowed 10% of the window.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell/Harbison to adjourn to a regular
meeting of the Design Review Board on September I, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the
La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 9:38 P.M., August 4, 1993.
DRBB-4
11