1993 01 13 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
January 13, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. and Boardmember
Curtis led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright,
James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Adolph, and Chairman
Harbison.
B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell,
and Secretary n Cristal Spidell.
m. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490; a request of E.F.P. Corporation (Ed
Carnes) for approval of development standards for a future shopping center and
approval to develop a +251,272 square foot commercial shopping center located
at the northwest comer of Jefferson Street and Highway Ill.
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.
Boardmember Rice asked if Staff had reviewed the plans. Staff stated
they had briefly reviewed them. The Board discussed with the Staff the
difficulty being experienced between the applicant and the Board regarding
what was expected of the applicant on his plans.
DRBl-13
1
Design Review Board Minutes
January 13, 1993
3. Mr. Michael Hurst, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board
regarding the plans presented in relation to questions raised by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
4. Boardmembers asked Mr. Hurst to explain the neon tubing as to its
location and visibility. Boardmember expressed their desire that the tubes
not be visible from the parking lot.
5. Chairman Harbison asked Mr. Hurst to identify the colors to be used.
6. Boardmember Wright asked if the parapet would be high enough to hide
the mechanical equipment. Mr. Hurst stated that it would be.
7. Commissioner Adolph asked if the roof accesses were on the interior.
Mr. Hurst stated they were. Boardmember Wright asked if there was an
emergency exterior access on the exterior. Mr. Hurst stated they were not
required to have one.
8. Boardmember Anderson inquired if the neon would continue from the
south elevation to the east elevation to continue the effect. Mr. Hurst
stated it could. Boardmembers discussed the different elevations in
relation to lighting and security.
9. Boardmembers discussed with Mr. Hurst the turning access points and the
circulation pattern to enter and exit the project.
10. Boardmember Campbell inquired what the square footage of Building "B"
was. Mr. Hurst stated it was 55,000 square feet and was a two story
mass but only one story. Boardmember Campbell expressed his concern
that the plans showed a second story. Mr. Hurst stated that as there was
no tenant at the time be drew the plans with the flexibility to be either a
single or two story building according to the tenant needs. Boardmember
Anderson inquired if there was adequate parking for either plan. Mr.
Hurst stated there was ample parking for a one story structure and if a
second story was added additional parking would be provided. Discussion
followed regarding building mass and adequate parking.
II. Boardmember Campbell expressed his disapproval of the stair step glass
treatment. He questioned the display windows on the cinema building and
the materials to be used, the materials to be used on the columns, whether
there would be trash compactors and their location.
DRBl-13 2
Design Review Board K1Dutes
January 13, 1993
12. Boardmember Anderson expressed his concern that Building. A. lacked
detail compared to the other buildings and needed a loading area as well
as the remainder of the project needed a delivery corridor or site. In
addition, the location of the trellised breezeway connecting Building. A.
and "B" was uncertain according to the plans; the large wood columns at
the curbline needed to be eliminated for safety pUl]Xlses; and the greatest
concern is to see the parapets run back to the neon and run continuously
through the building or a far enough distance so that they are not seen as
a comer that does not turn. Also the trellis work needs to be connected
and serve as pedestrian shading. The north elevation needs detail to break
up the long flat look. The glass entries do not relate to the project and
making the glass boxes cool in the summer will be a nightmare.
13. Boardmember Curtis expressed his disappointment in the architecture and
the project as to how long it took to gain the information necessary to
make a decision on the project.
14. Boardmember Rice expressed his concern regarding the tile color and the
need for it to be softened.
15. Commissioner Adolph asked the Applicant how the signage would be
handled. Mr. Hurst stated that there would be signage for each unit.
16. Boardmember Rice moved to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission of the project subject to the revised conditions as follows:
a. That the roof tile be softened.
b. The awning material be softened in the same desert style.
Boardmember Curtis seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL:
1
~"\ ' t,,~, f
A YES: Boardmembers Curtis, Rice, Harbison, Wright;
NOES: Boardmembers Campbell, Anderson, &
Commissioner Adolph. ABSENT: None; ABSTAINING:
None.
17. Boardmember Curtis excused himself and left the meeting at 6:50 P.M.
18. Boardmember Wright agreed that the above comments were recommended
as conditions.
DRBl-13 3
Design Review Board Minutes
January 13, 1993
19. Commissioner Adolph discussed with the Applicant the problem with the
amount of glass to be used.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None
v. OrnER
A. Principal Planner Stan Sawa addressed the Board regarding the sign program at
the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center regarding the use of a businesses logo
incorporated in the sign. A clarification was needed regarding who can use a
"logo" in the sign. Members discussed three pending cases. Members discussed
with Staff what they interpreted to be a logo, what colors were acceptable, and
whether the signs should be all upper case or a mixture. Following discussion,
it was determined that Staff would make the determination unless the "logo" was
out of line.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Rice to adjourn to a
regular meeting of the Design Review Board on February 3, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting
of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:15 P.M., January 13, 1993.
DRBl-13
4