1993 06 23 DRB Minutes
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINT A
A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
June 23, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M. and Boardmember
Campbell led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning
Commission Representative Adolph, and Chairman Harbison. Boardmembers
Curtis/Wright moved and seconded a motion to excuse Boardmembers Rice and
Anderson. Unanimously approved.
B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell
and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
m. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza for review of a revised elevation plan
for a commercial project on 5.6 acres in the C-P-S Zone.
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.
2.
Mr. Phil Pead addressed the Board regarding the project. He addressed
the changes that had been incorporated into the plans.
3.
Boardmember Curtis asked if the applicant had any problem with any of
the staff imposed conditions. Mr. Pead stated he did not. Boardmember
Curtis discussed the alternatives for the cupola for the restaurant building
and the two freestanding buildings. Mr. Pead stated they had hoped to
have the two distinct with each having a different look. Commissioner
Adolph stated his concern that all the buildings blend together with the
same roof theme. Members discussed with Mr. Pead the look of the
DRB6-23
1
Design Review Board Minutes
June 23, 1993
buildings along with the issue of hiding the mechanical equipment.
Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the roof line looked like it was only
designed to hide the mechanical equipment. Members discussed the
cupola style, height, and relationship to the other building.
4. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Pead to clarify the parking deck in
regard to the railing and height. Mr. Pead explained the parking
structure. Following discussion regarding the design and height of the
structure, Boardmember Wright stated he felt more landscaping needed to
be added to hide the cars from Highway 111. Members discussed
different types of landscaping that could be used.
5. Boardmember Curtis asked if the east side of the parking structure would
be open. Mr. Pead stated it would be.
6. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Pead to identify where the Simon Motors
main building would sit in relation to the parking structure. Mr. Pead
stated it was not as close to the curb as the parking structure.
Commissioner Adolph asked how far the parking structure was from curb
of Highway 111. Mr. Pead stated he thought it was 50-feet. Members
felt it might be closer to 6O-feet.
7. Boardmember Curtis asked in how many phases the project would be
built. Mr. Pead stated it would be built in one phase.
8. Boardmembers stated they felt this design was much improved over the
four story structure. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the building
needed to be articulated more. It needed indentation as it was too plain
and the wall needed to do something. Mr. Pead stated his frustration with
the repeated changes and even though his original building met the Code
requirements, he still followed the desire of the Board and Commission
and made the changes. He would like to be able to build his project.
9. Following the discussion, Boardmembers Curtis/Wright moved to
recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-495 subject to staff conditions with
modifications as follows:
a. The roof line of the two middle buildings be given the same roof
line structure as the restaurant without the second cupola.
'c~' The motion carried with Boardmember Campbell voting No, and
D:'.'" Boardmembers Anderson and Rice being absent.
DRB6-23
2
Design Review Board Minutes
June 23, 1993
B. Review and study of application submission requirements and/or development
standards.
DRB6-23
1.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated he felt the application submission was
an appropriate place for the Board to start.
2.
Boardmember Curtis presented an outline that he felt the Board should
follow. He further stated that he felt the Board was being pressured to
approve projects that were less than what the City wanted.
3.
Boardmember Wright felt the talents and abilities of the Boardmembers
were causing the approvals to be improved over time. He felt the projects
would continue to improve over time as the Board continues to grow and
develop.
4.
Boardmember Campbell felt the Design Review Guidelines were too
vague. Staff stated that the purpose of these meetings was to have the
Board review the necessary paperwork so that when the applicant
completes the submitted work, the project plans are complete when it is
before the Board so the Board can act and move the project on. The
Council's direction is for the Board to move the project on rapidly with
the best project possible.
5.
Boardmember Curtis stated that when the applicants present their projects
they do not address everything in the Guideline Checklist and if this is
what the Board is to judge the project on, then these items should be
addressed by the applicant. Discussion followed regarding the forms.
6.
Boardmember Wright expressed his desire to have a study session to allow
the Board to discuss the projects in an informal meeting. Members
discussed their desire to have study sessions to go over agenda items.
7.
Boardmember Wright stated he wanted the application to state who
actually owns the property as well as who the applicant is. Members
discussed the different projects that had been before them and who the
actual owners were.
8.
Commissioner Adolph stated the Board needed to devise what they wanted
from the applicant. Boardmember Campbell stated he hoped the outline
he prepared was a beginning. Chairman Harbison clarified which projects
would need to have the detailed design guidelines. Members discussed
preparing a document(s) that could be prepared for the applicants.
3
Design Review Board Minutes
June 23. 1993
9. Staff asked the Board to clarify what they wanted to work on.
Boardmember CampbelJ stated there were two items. One was for the
applicant to understand what the City wants from them and the other is all
the designs and drawings for Board and Commission approval.
Boardmembers stated they needed to work on design guidelines to be
presented to the applicant.
10. Boardmember CampbelJ stated he had brought a slide presentation of what
he felt the Board should be looking for in a design presentation. He
would present the slides after the meeting.
11. Boardmember Curtis stated his concern as to whether the Board should set
a criteria for the developer or for the Board to judge the project by. He
did not think it was the Board function to design the project for the
developer.
12. Staff asked what the Board wanted to see at their next study session.
Chairman Harbison stated they would work on design review guidelines
for the Board to critique the projects. Staff would provide copies of
applications and submittal packages that staff gives to prospective
developers.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
Following discussion, Boardmember Curtis and Commissioner Adolph moved to adjourn
to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on July 7, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. with a
study session to be held on July 14, 1993, at 5:30 P.M.. This meeting of the Design
Review Board was adjourned at 7: I 1 P.M.
DRB6-23
4