1993 07 07 DRB Minutes
MlNUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUlNTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
July 7, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. and Planning
Commissioner Elison led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright, James
Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Elison, and Chairman Harbison.
Boardmembers Anderson/Wright moved to excuse Boardmember Rice.
Unanimously approved.
B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty
Sawyer.
C. Chairman Harbison opened the nominations for Chairman. Boardmembers
Anderson/Wright moved to nominate John Curtis for Chairman. Unanimously
approved.
D. Chairman Curtis opened the nominations for Vice Chairman. Boardmembers
Wright! Anderson nominated James Campbell. Boardmember Wright moved to
close the nominations. Planning Commissioner Elison seconded the motion and
it carried unanimously. Boardmember Campbell was elected unanimously.
m. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 93-504; a request of Winchester Asset Management (for La Quinta Golf
Properties) for approval of plans for a maintenance building and security
guardhouse.
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.
Boardmember Harbison asked staff to clarify the location.
DRB7-7
1
Design Review Board Minutes
July 7, 1993
DRB7-7
3.
Boardmember Anderson asked what the status was of using a real slate
roof. Mr. Craig Pearson, architect for the project, stated that the real
slate was cost prohibitive as well as a concern for the weight on the
structure.
4.
Boardmember Campbell stated it did not feel the entrance was better than
the Vintage in its appearance. Mr. Pearson stated that the Vintage has
two entries with 200 foot entrances. This is a single entrance with a 60
foot entrance.
5.
Chairman Curtis asked who owned the property on either side of the road.
Mr. Mike Rowe, Keith Companies, stated it was privately owned and was
subject to development but there was no access off this road.
6.
Boardmember Wright stated the structure was extremely simple and no
shade provisions. Mr. Pearson stated there was minimal landscaping due
to the length of the 60 foot entrance and their desire was to have a simple
elegant statement. Members discussed the simplicity of the guardhouse.
7.
Boardmember Anderson stated this was simple design. More gate detail
may add to the look. He would like to have had the designed gates
presented for discussion. He was concerned because the entire look was
not present. Mr. Pearson stated that the conditions stated that they must
be ornamental and wiIl be approved at the permit stage. He went on to
explain the gate.
8.
Boardmember Wright asked where the pilasters were located, the material
to be used and the height. Mr. Pearson stated there were 31 altogether,
5'6" and will be simplistic in design, and will be veneer with wrought
iron. Mr. Ken Alberstein, Ronald Gregory Associates, stated that the
wrought iron wiIl be simplistic due to the amount of landscaping and
berming that will go in front of it.
9.
Chairman Curtis asked if the fence would continue around the project.
Mr. Alberstein stated it would be a combination. Where the wrought iron
ends a block wall wiIl continue.
10.
Boardmember Wright felt the design was a disappointment in comparison
to the clubhouse. Mr. Pearson went on to explain the detail of the
building. Discussion followed among the members and the applicants
regarding the simplicity of the project. Members expressed their desire
to see something of more quality with more of an impact.
2
Design Review Board Minutes
July 7. 1993
11. Planning Commissioner Elison asked for a comparison in size between
this project and the Vintage. Mr. Bryant stated this project was a lot
smaller with only 65 residential lots.
12. Boardmember Harbison asked how many members to the club. Mr.
Alberstein stated there would be 65 residences and 365 members.
Discussion followed as to how many people would be utilizing the
entrance.
13. Boardmember Harbison stated that other design features from the
clubhouse could have been utilized on the guardhouse to restate the theme
for the project. It is also an opportunity to take a long driveway and
utilizing native plants that would lead to a lush green area and then back
to a more native landscaping on the golf course. The applicant stated that
they were using more drought tolerant plants rather than the native due to
their customers request. A discussion of different plants was discussed.
14. Boardmember Harbison stated that he felt the lawn compromises part of
the view of trying to make it more private. Plants with more height
would be better utilized. The applicant stated that the lawn was used to
give people a feeling of arriving at an oasis.
15. Boardmember Harbison stated that the Board needed to see conceptual
designs of the pilasters, wrought iron, and entry gates.
16. Boardmember Wright asked where the parking was to be located near the
entrance. One stall would not be sufficient. Mr. Bryant stated there were
not planning on additional people stopping at this point. Additional
parking could be provided. Members discussed locations where additional
parking could be provided for workers, etc.
17. Planning Commissioner Elison asked if hardscape could be used in the
parking spaces in stone to carry out the stone feature and be an asset to
provide a place for someone to park. In addition, some sort of shelter
should be provided over the entering driveway to compensate for the heat.
Mr. Pearson stated their were other height problems. It was suggested
that a trellis or veranda column be provided.
18. Chairman Curtis suggested that the applicant extend the building and make
it longer.
DRB7-7 3
Design Review Board Minutes
July 7, 1993
19. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt columns should be added and
raising the building but a cover was not necessary. Discussion followed
regarding incorporating some of the clubhouse features in the guardhouse.
discussion followed as to alternatives and suggestions as to adding detail
to the building.
20. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and
Planning Commissioner Elison to move to continue the guardhouse for a
resubmittal as it relates to the landscaping, gates, and pilasters.
Boardmember Wright asked that the additional parking spaces be added
to the motion. Anderson/Elison agreed and the motion passed
unanimously.
21. Boardmember Campbell questioned the motion as to accepting the existing
drawings. Boardmember Anderson stated he was not asking for the same
drawings upgraded but asking the applicant to resubmit the guardhouse.
22. Chairman Curtis opened discussion on the maintenance building and stated
he felt the building was lacking any character or design. Mr. Pearson
stated the building had a 12-foot ceiling to carry a two foot barrel wall for
a ten foot opening and a 3'6" truss and 6" parapet front and 16-feet long
and they buried it from the adjacent lot at an elevation of 30-feet down to
20-feet. Chairman Curtis asked what would be on the roof. Mr. Pearson
stated there would be nothing on the roof.
23. Boardmember Anderson asked for clarification on how far the
maintenance building would be sunk down. Staff stated it would be + 10
feet below the existing grade. It was pointed out that the only part of the
building that would be visible is that portion you could see through the
Mesquite trees.
24. Boardmember Wright asked where the building could be seen from. Staff
stated it may be seen from Cahuilla Park Road.
25. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked if Cahuilla Park Road at the dike
was higher making the maintenance building visible. Mr. Mike Rowe,
engineer for the project explained the layout of the building and the use
of landscaping to help hide the building.
26. Chairman Curtis asked how much planting would be planted on the 2: I
slope without retaining walls, etc. Mr. Rowe stated it would be sufficient
to hold the slope. Chairman Curtis asked if the wall was solid or did it
DRB7-7 4
Design Review Board Minutes
July 7, 1993
have any tile accents. The applicant stated it would be solid because it
would be obliterated within a year with the landscaping.
27. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to explain the maintenance gate.
Mr. Rowe stated it was wrought iron with a mesh treatment to hide the
entrance. Boardmember Anderson asked that the theme from the entry
gate be incorporated into this gate.
28. Boardmember Campbell asked that the Conditions of Approval contain a
restriction that the building would be obliterated by the landscaping within
a year or year and a half. Discussion followed regarding what type and
size of plants should be planted. It was determined that two years was
ample time for the landscaping to reach full growth.
29. Boardmember Wright asked if the pilasters would be carried down the
wall and at the gate. The applicant stated they could.
30. Boardmember Harbison asked the applicant if he had any objections to the
Conditions of Approval. The applicant asked. for clarification of
Condition #1 regarding the word "decorative" gates. Discussion followed
regarding the maintenance gate and a design element that would tie the
two gates together.
31. Members discussed the lettering of the sign. Staff stated Boardmember
Rice stated the "Q' of "Quarry" should be larger and the "Y" should be
smaller. He felt the "Q" was out of balance. Mr. Pearson went into
detail to describe the logo sign. Boardmembers stated the materials and
color of the sign and stated they had no objection to the sign.
32. Boardmember Anderson asked what the lighting would be for the
guardhouse. Mr. Pearson stated the lighting would be down lighting
bullet lighting.
33. Mr. Ken Albertstein asked for clarification of Condition #5 regarding the
size of the plants to be planted. He stated that most of the trees being
planted would grow so rapidly that they felt they could downgraded to 15"
instead of the 24". He also wanted clarification that the indigenous plants
would start past the maintenance facility. Discussion followed regarding
the plants and sizes. Boardmember Harbison stated he understood the
desire to have an oasis effect around the guardhouse and entry gate but as
you get away on the public side use native with a lot of indigenous
Sonoran plants and then behind the guardhouse use semi Sonoran with
DRB7-7 5
Design Review Board Minutes
July 7. 1993
other indigenous plants blending in with plants from other places in the
world. But the use of citrus trees was not appropriate for this area. The
applicant stated this was a request of the owner. Boardmember Harbison
stated these should be used around the clubhouse. Discussion followed
regarding indigenous Sonoran plants versus some of the South American
or South African plants.
34. Planning Commissioner Elison stated she felt the conflict was that the
Board was envisioning a project that was more desert Southwest, natural
material use of native rocks, and the owner is wanting a more lush,
Hawaiian, eastern, grassy, project and the Board was trying to reach a
compromise. The applicant stated that 80-85 % of the project was going
to be native and only 10% would give the homeowners the more lush
feeling with the oasis look.
35. Boardmember Anderson stated he was willing to alter Condition #5 to
50% of the trees being 24. and that the maintenance building be hidden
within two years. Discussion followed regarding the trees being used for
screening.
36. Boardmember Anderson clarified Condition #6 in that the wrought iron
gate and fencing be resubmitted with the plans for the guardhouse.
37. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Anderson/Wright
\)~: moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-504 subject to the
C/),.,. conditions as submitted and amended as follows:
a. Condition #5: that 50% of the trees along Cahuilla Park Drive
shall be a minimum of the 24" box size.
b. Condition #6: The maintenance building would be hidden
substantially within two years by the landscaping. The public gate
details for the maintenance building shall be resubmitted with the
guardhouse.
c. The deletion of Condition #3.
38.
Staff informed the Board that there would be a study session on July 14,
1993 and would the Board desire to have the applicant resubmit by that
time. Boardmembers stated they would prefer to the item at their regular
meeting of August 4, 1993.
DRB7-7
6
Design Review Board Minutes
July 7, 1993
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None
V. ornER-
A. Boardmember Wright asked staff if progress was being made in determining who
owned the property for the projects being submitted. Staff stated that this was
part of the application process and Board would be reviewing this at their study
session.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson to adjourn to a special
meeting of the Design Review Board on July 14, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This .meeting of the La
Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:08 P.M., July 7, 1993.
DRB7-7
7