1993 06 02 DRB Minutes
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINT A
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78- 105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
June 2, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:36 P.M. and Boardmember
Rice led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, Fred Rice, John Curtis, Randall Wright,
James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Adolph, and Chairman
Harbison. Boardmember Anderson arrived at 5:45 P.M.
B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie
Mouriquand-Cherry, and Secretary II Crista! Spidell.
ill. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 93-500; a request of Landrex for approval of off-water architectural
plans for Phase I of the Avante collection in Tract 26152, Lake La Quinta for
models and single family homes.
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.
2.
Boardmember Anderson suggested that additional shading be accomplished
by increasing the eaves rather than using popouts. Other than that he felt
the project would go well in the desert.
3.
Boardmember Campbell asked for clarification on . A-I, A-2, A-3". Mr.
Bob Ritchey, architect for the project explained that there were four
different elevation plans.
4.
Boardmember Curtis asked why on A-I and some of the others the
chimney was so high. Mr. Ritchey stated it was intended to be reduced.
DRB6-2
1
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
5. Boardmember Randall stated his concern for energy conservation and
questioned the glazing on the homes. Mr. Ritchey asked if the City had
any requirements other than Title 24. Boardmember Randall stated not
at this time. Chairman Harbison stated that the City did not have any
requirements but the general desire of the Board was to go beyond Title
24. Mr. Ritchey stated the details they implemented into their plans to
meet their energy conservation measures.
6. Boardmember Anderson asked about the eaves. Mr. Ritchey stated that
they taking a hip roof and cutting it off to create a hybrid hip and gable
to lower the end view so no two houses are together with high roofs to
allow more light in. Discussion followed regarding the roof and
overhangs.
7. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant took into consideration the
direction of the house regarding the Title 24 calculations regarding the air
conditioning. Mr. Ritchey stated that when they do the calculations for
air conditioning they chose the house with the worst scenario and do the
calcs on that house.
8. Boardmember Curtis asked if the applicant had any objections to the staff
recommendations. Mr. Ritchey stated he had not seen them as of yet.
Mr. Ritchey was allowed to review them and concurred.
9.
There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Boardmembers Anderson/Curtis to approve Plot Plan 93-500 subject to
conditions as recommended by Staff. Unanimously approved.
, .
B. Plot Plan 93-499; a request of Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation for
approval of Phase 2 architectural plans for single family residences within
Tentative Tract 23923 (Quinterra).
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry informed the Board that the
applicant had withdrawn its application.
C. Sign Application 93-197. Amendment #2; a request of Mr. Skip Berg, DGI
Graphics for JFK Memorial Hospital to deviate from the master sign program for
the new JFK sign program at Plaza Tampico.
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.
DRB6-2
2
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
DRB6-2
2.
Boardmember Curtis asked for clarification on the height of the sign.
3.
Boardmember Anderson asked if the sign was to be externally illuminated.
Mr. Skip Berg, representing the applicant, explained how the sign would
be illuminated. Boardmember Anderson stated he would rather see bullet
lighting in the landscaping that would be a better quality illumination than
fluorescent lighting. Mr. Berg stated he had no objection if there was
enough room. Discussion followed regarding the lighting.
4.
Chairman Harbison asked what portion of the constructed building IFK
Hospital would have. Mr. Berg stated it would be one of the larger
tenants. Boardmember Curtis stated that although it was necessary to
keep the identity it was also necessary to have a smaller sign. Mr. Berg
Stated that he had a concern with the height as he was trying to be seen
over a four foot wall. Discussion followed regarding different
alternatives.
5.
Mr. Skip Berg asked if it was possible to move the sign closer to the
street and therefore lower the sign. Boardmember Wright asked how far
the applicant would want to move it. Boardmember Anderson stated his
only concern was that the sign not block the vehicular visibility.
6.
Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the sign objectionable at whatever
height and should be redesigned.
7.
Boardmember Anderson stated that if the base was shortened to 18-inches
and covered by landscaping it would be better. He further asked if this
would ever be a monument sign. Mr. Berg stated no it would not.
Discussion followed regarding additional signs for the tenants.
8.
Chairman Harbison stated he would favor lowering the sign so no
additional signs would fit and setting this as a tone for what the signs will
have to be for the remainder of the complex. Discussion followed
regarding the other signs on the complex.
9.
Boardmember Anderson suggested that a wire fixture with a large brim
like the old porcelain lights that would set a character style for the
Village.
10.
Chairman Harbison asked Staff if there were any objections to moving the
sign closer to the street. Staff stated the requirement was five feet from
the property line. Discussion followed as to where the property line was
located.
3
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
"
',,)'
\ - 16.
11. Boardmember Wright questioned the location of the complex address
numbers. He asked if it was possible to put the address on the sign. Mr.
Berg stated his only problem was the location of the four foot wall
blocking the view. Discussion followed.
12. Chairman Harbison stated the items that needed to be addressed before the
project went to the Planning Commission.
a. Putting the street address on the sign.
b. Lowering the sign below 12-feet, possibly 8-feet.
13.
Boardmember Anderson reiterated that if the sign was of a better design,
there probably would not be any objection to the size or location.
14.
Mr. Berg asked staff if there was any possibility of allowing the sign to
go to the property line. Staff stated it was a matter of filing a variance to
the setback requirement.
15.
There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Anderson/Rice moved
to approve the JFK sign that would be attached to the building as
submitted and subject to staff conditions. Unanimously approved.
Boardmembers Anderson/Curtis moved that the monument sign be
redesigned and resubmitted. Unanimously approved.
D. Plot Plan 93-498; a request of Stonington Properties for approval to allow
construction of a 7,000 square foot retail paid building located approximately 700
feet east of Washington Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Center.
1.
2.
3.
DRB6-2
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.
Boardmember Rice asked staff if there was to be any majors located in the
building and would there be a problem with who would want sign
identification on the tower. Staff stated that when the major tenant was
determined they would be paying to have the tower sign identification.
Chairman Harbison expressed his concern that there would be a request
for two signs. Staff stated this was a comer and they would be allowed
the second sign.
4
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
13.
DRB6-2
4.
Boardmember Campbell asked if there was a criteria for screening the
transformer. Staff stated that this was the responsibility of the master
developer and as the transformer was not yet installed, staff would see that
the transformer would be landscaped. Discussion followed.
5.
Boardmember Anderson asked if the tower was glazed or wall surface.
Staff stated that it was a trellis against a plaster wall.
6.
Boardmember Wright asked if the south wall could have additional design
treatment with a little depth to break up the long, flat wall.
7.
Mr. Gene Scarcello, applicant, addressed the Board. Boardmember
Campbell asked if the applicant could alleviate the south elevation. Mr.
Scarcello stated there was a berm between the wall and Highway III
presently to break up the wall.
8.
Boardmembers discussed the layout of the building with the applicant.
9.
Mr. Chuck Marvick, architect, stated that you would not see any two
sides of the tower from anyone point. On the south side where the trellis
elements are used to disguise the rear entrance doors there was a potential
to give this side of the building additional treatment. He suggested raising
the trellis beams and let the facia rest on the trellis instead of changing the
roof line. Discussion followed.
10.
Chairman Harbison suggested that the building be moved so not to
encroach into the easement area. Mr. Scarcelo stated they had no
objection but asked for some general instruction as to how much.
Boardmembers stated approximately three feet would be adequate to
provide a three foot setback between the existing sidewalk and trellis.
11.
Boardmember Campbell suggested expanding the elements horizontally
and vertically so the wall does not dominate so much.
12.
Commissioner Adolph asked if the tower was enclosed or not. The
applicant stated it was enclosed and went on to explain the construction of
the tower. Commissioner Adolph stated he would like to see more
consistency in the buildings along Highway III. He further stated there
needed to be consistency in the towers. Discussion followed.
There being no further questions, Commissioners Curtis/Rice moved to
recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-498 subject to staff conditions with
the following additions:
5
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
a. Minimum three foot clearance between the back of the trellis and
sidewalk on the south elevation.
b. Increase the size of the trellis and treatment on the south elevation.
r\',. . Unanimously approved.
E. Plot Plan 93-497; a request of Morite of California (Red Robin Restaurant) for
approval to construct a 7,280 square foot restaurant with outdoor seating within
the One Eleven La Quinta Center.
DRB6-2
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 Anderson suggested that if there was a problem with the
sign in regards to the trellis, they should eliminate the sign and have that
make up for their requirement at the entry. The entry sign could be their
west facing sign.
3.
Boardmember Wright suggested putting the logo in character of the sign
over the entrance.
4.
Boardmember Rice suggested a canopy over the entrance with the sign
might be considered.
5.
Boardmember Wright asked if there was any trellis work on the east
elevation. Boardmember Anderson suggested that pilasters be used with
a small amount of trellis to break up this side of the building.
6.
Boardmember Curtis asked why the additional landscaping was not
included in the conditions. Staff stated they would like to have it added.
7.
Mr. Chris Cooper, architect, addressed the concerns of the Board. He
stated the east wall was the kitchen wall and stated he had no objection to
the trellis treatment for the east elevation.
8.
Boardmember Wright asked if the applicant had any objection to moving
one of the signs. Discussion followed regarding the size and location of
the signs.
6
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
9. Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant could warp the slab to get
rid of the handicap ramp. The applicant stated they were still debating
what to do with the ramp.
10. Boardmember Anderson asked if the top parapet could be broken up to
give relief from the straight horizontal line. Discussion followed
regarding the different alternatives that could be used.
II. Boardmembers discussed the colors used in the signs.
12. Boardmember Campbell asked ifit was possible to break up the windows
by putting another horizontal member at the bottom. The applicant stated
he would rather put it at the top. Boardmember Wright questioned the
height of the windows. The applicant stated they went to 8'9". The
Board discussed additional treatment of the windows.
13. Boardmember Campbell questioned the illuminated address sign on the
inside of the glass. The applicant stated this could be removed.
Boardmember Wright asked there be address numbers somewhere on the
building.
14. Chairman Harbison questioned the detail on the trellis structure but did
not know the direction of the trellis members. The applicant explained the
construction.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmembers
Rice/Curtis to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-497 subject to staff
conditions and the additional vertical landscaping and trellis treatment on
the east elevation, Fan Palms to be a minimum of 8-feet, recess the
windows 12-inches, and possible added treatment of the top parapet.
Unanimously approved. '
F. Plot Plan 93-501; a request of Winchester Asset Management (for La Quinta Golf
Properties) for approval of plans for a golf course clubhouse for "The Quarry"
project located south and west of lake Cahuilla.
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 Wright asked if there was a parapet around the building and
would it be high enough to hide any mechanical equipment. The applicant
stated it would. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be any
DRB6-2
7
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
DRB6-2
discharge ducts off the mechanical equipment on the condensing side to
come through the trellis on the roof and could contain it without short
cycling. Mr. Craig Pearson, architect, stated they saw no problems.
Boardmember Wright stated the potential problems that could be
encountered if they were not treated right. Mr. Pearson stated he would
see that their engineer looked into the problem.
3.
Mr. Craig Bryant, development managers for the project, spoke regarding
the project.
4.
Boardmember Campbell asked why real slate was not used instead of
concrete slate on the roof. Mr. Bryant stated the concrete was being used
in other places throughout the country and others have found it to be very
favorable. Discussion followed regarding the advantages of using concrete
over the slate.
5.
Commissioner Adolph asked why the gable on the roof was to create a
clerestory inside the building. The applicant stated it was to get some
light inside the building. Commissioner Adolph questioned why they were
not using skylights. Mr. Pearson explained why they preferred the gable
roof.
6.
Boardmember Anderson asked if the stone veneer would reflect the
indigenous rock of the quarry. Mr. Pearson stated it would reflect the
color. Mr. Bryant stated they would be using as much of the existing
indigenous rock as possible.
7.
Boardmember Rice asked if you would be able to see the clubhouse from
the top of the dike. Mr. Bryant stated you would not.
8.
Boardmember Curtis asked what the pad height of the building in relation
to the berm that is existing. Mr. Bryant stated it was approximately one
foot lower and the dike would continue to serve as a dike.
9.
Boardmember Curtis asked what the materials were being used on the
west and south side of the veranda. Mr. Pearson stated they were square
wood columns. The vertical railing wi\l be painted, very thin metal so as
to not obstruct the view of the golf course with a wood cap 'so it wi\l not
be hot.
10.
Chairman Harbison asked that the look should be more "ranch" looking
rather than the "Southern" look. Mr. Pearson stated that hopefully with
the use the stone, wood, and detail it would not have that look
8
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
~''l;. ,F ( .
11.
Boardmember Anderson stated he strongly supported the use of as much
as possible the indigenous stone throughout the veneer. In addition, he
would like to see real slate used rather than the concrete. Boardmember
Campbell agreed that this would enhance the building. Both
Boardmembers strongly expressed their approval of the project.
12.
Chairman Harbison asked Mr. Bryant to explain the character of the golf
course. Mr. Bryant stated the golf course would be a graded, undulating,
with gradual elevation changes, with several waterfalls and water features.
13.
Chairman Harbison discussed the landscaping with Mr. Bryant. Mr.
Bryant stated they were working with a company to save as many of the
existing trees as possible.
14.
There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Anderson/Harbison
moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-501 subject to conditions.
Unanimously approved.
G. Plot Plan 93-501; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for
approval of preliminary plans for an entry design on Washington Street and
review of general architectural guidelines for the Orchard project (previously The
Pyramids).
2.
3.
4.
5.
DRB6-2
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.
Staff clarified that the project will be joined with the Orchard project to
the south by an underground tunnel.
Boardmember Campbell asked for clarification on what the Board was to
review. Members discussed with staff the drawings and the lack of the
materials called out on the plans.
Mr. Chuck Strother, representing the applicant, addressed the Board
concerning the project.
Boardmember Curtis asked if the entryway is to be curbed. Mr. Strother
explained the entryway construction and landscaping of the entryway.
9
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
6. Boardmember Curtis asked if the grade would remain as it was planned
originally. Mr. Strother stated it would be close to it. Boardmember
Curtis asked whether the applicant was using uplighting in the area. Mr.
Strother stated all the trees would be uplighted.
7. Boardmember Wright asked if a lane would be provided for left turns.
Mr. Strother stated that would depend on whether there was a signal
provided and this would be addressed when they start work on the
engineering of the project.
8. Mr. Strother stated that the existing Orchard on the south side of Avenue
50 and the Pyramids project would be marrying the two projects together
and connect them by a golf cart tunnel. The two would have aligned
entrances on Avenue 50 which could possibly be signalized.
Boardmember Wright asked if there would be an entrance on Jefferson
Street. Mr. Strother stated yes as well as Adams Street and 48th Avenue
and possibly one at Dune Palms. He stated there would be at least four
entrances to the project.
9. Boardmember Anderson asked that the tile roof on the guard gate be a
true Mission two piece tile. Mr. Strother stated it would be.
10. Commissioner Adolph asked that more detail be on the plans when it
appears before the Planning Commission.
11. Boardmember Campbell stressed that he needed to see the materials called
out on the plans in order to make a determination on the project.
Boardmember Anderson reenforced the need to have complete plans
presented to the Board. Mr. Strother went over the plans and called out
the materials on the drawings. Members discussed the items the Board
wanted on the plans with Mr. Strother.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmembers
Anderson/Curtis to recommend a conceptual approval of the entry design
subject to conditions with the stipulation that the individual Members
would review the plans on Friday before the Planning Commission
meeting and would voice any objections at the Planning Commission
Study Session. Unanimously approved. ;fS . C' '.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Boardmember Campbell asked that on Page 3, Item 12 "stucco" should replace the word
"fence" and the last line change "they" to "it". Page 5, Item 11 add the word".... would
be around the glazed opening". Item 12 add the sentence, "Board members determined
that they wanted multi-pane windows." Item #13 change the word "color" to "columns".
DRB6-2
10
Design Review Board Minutes
June 2, 1993
Item #15 remove the word "eliminate" and add the words, "separated from the building"
and eliminate the words, "and there needed to be a tower effect on the circular building
popouts". Boardmember Wright asked that Page 6, Item #18 questioned the fact that
Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Simon was an investor in the project and that in the earlier
meeting the Board had been told by Mr. Simon that he was not an investor.
Boardmember Curtis pointed out that Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Simon was an investor
not Mr. Simon. Members discussed the discussion.
Boardmember Campbell asked that Page 5, Item #11 the word "elevations. should be
changed to .plans".
There being no further corrections Boardmembers Anderson/Rice moved and seconded
a motion to approve the Minutes of May 5, 1993, as corrected. Unanimously approved.
V. OTHER -
A. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt that in light of the joint meeting with the
City Council and Planning Commission the Board had been charged to develop
Design Guidelines and a checklist of minimal submittal document for the
developers. He suggested that the next meeting be utilized to work on these
items. Members discussed having a study session to discuss agenda items as well
as the above noted items. Boardmember Campbell stated he had slides collection
of signs, buildings, colors, and materials that would be of interest to the
Boardmembers. Boardmember Anderson suggested that this presentation be a
joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Boardmember Campbell stressed
the importance of developing guidelines as soon as possible.
B. Boardmember Campbell asked that staff inform the Automobile Club that their
logo on the south elevation be centered and it is not. Discussion followed.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Rice/Curtis to adjourn to a special meeting of the
Design Review Board on June 23, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design
Review Board was adjourned at 9:28 P.M., June 2, 1993.
DRB6-2
11