Loading...
1992 12 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 December 2, 1992 5:30 P.M. L CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:34 P.M. and Boardmember Rice led the flag salute. ll. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. m. BUSINESS SESSION A. Community Park North; a request of the City for review of conceptual plans for an 18 acre park site located at the northeast comer of Adams Street and Westward Ho Drive. 1. Parks and Recreation Manager Clint Bohlen presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Curtis inquired about the lighting of the ballfields. Staff stated the ballfield lights would be above the trees and will have state-of- the-art non-glare lights (Moscoe) to insure they do not disturb the local residents as much as possible. 3. Boardmembers asked why Palm trees were not being used. Staff stated that the final plant pallet had not been determined as of yet but the residents had requested that shade trees be used. Planning Commission DRB12-2 1 Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 I1.r _,/..,:) 'Jr- ' Chairwoman Barrows asked that some Palm trees be incorporated into the plan. Chainnan Harbison suggested that 40-foot Palms be utilized behind the lights for screening. 4. Boardmember Wright stated his concern that the amphitheater would not be effective facing the direction it was due to the direction of the wind. He further asked why the restrooms were located so far from the amphitheater. Mr. Bohlen stated that the amphitheater was designed at the bottom of the sand dune to block the wind and help keep the noise in the hole. As for the restrooms, they were located in the front of the park at the request of the Sheriffs Department for security reasons. During performances at the amphitheater port-a-potties would be provided near the theater. 5. Boardmember Curtis asked if the sidewalks would accommodate bicyclists/joggers. Staff stated they would. 6. Boardmember Rice asked where the park was in relation to the new high school. Staff showed the boundary of the high school and stated why some of the uses were duplicated. Members discussed the distance between this park and Fritz Bums park and the stonn retention basin to the north. 7. Staff went on to present the funding and phasing of the park. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to recommend approval of the plans to the City Council. Unanimously approved. B. Fritz Bums Park; a request of the City for review of conceptual plans for a 9.6 acre park site located at the east side of A venida Bennudas between the old and new 52nd Avenue. 2. DRB12-2 1. Parks and Recreation Manager Clint Bohlen presented the infonnation contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Boardmember Rice asked what would happen to the existing Eucalyptus trees. Staff stated they would need to be removed. 2 Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 3. Boardmembers discussed the location of the restrooms, size of the pool, the concession stand, service window, and the different uses of the building with Staff. 4. Planning Chairwoman Barrows inquired if the bike path would facilitate getting the children to Park Avenue and school. Staff stated there would be a bikepath around the park. Discussion followed regarding swimming pool fees, leasing out shops in the facility, and the lighting of the facility. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to recommend approval of the Park plans to the City Council. Unanimously approved.;! . C 'i'! C. Conditional Use Permit 92-004; a request of Carl's Jr. Restaurant for approval to construct and operate a fast foot restaurant with drive-thru on the north side of Highway III and south of the Whitewater Storm Channel in III La Quinta Shopping Center. 5. DRB12-2 I. 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 asked where the trash enclosure would be located. After describing the location discussion followed as to relocating the trash enclosure. 3. Boardmember Wright inquired about the allowed height of the structure and the service entrance. Staff stated the issued would be taken up by the Planning Commission but the General Plan allows a one story structures within ISO-feet of Highway Ill. 4. Mr. Frank Oley, site developer for Carl's Jr., stated the building sits 27- feet from Highway Ill. Boardmembers discussed the height of the towers. Mr. Oley stated the towers were being utilized to break up the building elevation as well as for signage. He further stated that the trash enclosure could be relocated in the berm closer to Highway III and the berm could help to act as a screen for the drive-thru area. Boardmembers, Staff and Mr. Oley discussed Staffs recommendation for a double lane for the drive-thru. Mr. Oley noted that a double lane is not needed since the first window is for paying with the second window for pick-up. 3 Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 6. Boardmember Wright questioned the height of the building. Discussion followed regarding the relationship between the foundation level, finish floor level and the pad height. Boardmember Curtis inquired if the Applicant would be willing to hold the height of the building to 23-feet high as measured from Highway lll. Mr. Oley stated that he would as long as the four foot pad depth was there. Boardmember Wright further stated that he felt the towers should be lowered. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated that City had not determined the specific height of a one story building. Most approvals had been between 2Q-28-feet. 7. Mr. Oley were through the Conditions of Approval. Questions were raised as follows: DRB12-2 a. Condition #1: Regarding the masonry wall. They felt the berm would be sufficient. Boardmember Anderson felt the screen should run the entire length of the drive-thru. It was suggested that the berm be alternated with the masonry wall and tie in the trash enclosure. It was determined that the area would be a combination of landscaping and berming with a concrete block wall as required in the Specific Plan Amendment. b. Condition #2: Mr. Oley asked that the trellis cover not be required unless patrons requested them. Staff stated this was not an option since City Code required their installation. c. Condition #5: Regarding the flagpole, the Applicant requested approval for 40-feet high. Following discussion it was determined that the flagpole would be allowed to be 13-feet above the roofline. d. Condition #6 & 8: Eliminated. e. Condition #10: It was stated that the Carl's Jr. menu would not fit on a standard size and requested a larger size. Boardmembers had no general problem. This would be reviewed with the sign program. f. Condition Ill: The Applicant requested they only be required to add shrub landscaping to the wrought iron fencing around the playground. Boardmembers agreed with the landscaping but additionally requested the Applicant work with Staff to provide a different design for the wrought iron fencing. 4 Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 g. Condition #12: Boardmembers expressed their concern for the height of the building and discussed different alternatives. Following the discussion, it was suggested that the Applicant add a parapet to the tower structure like that used inthe shopping center to bring it more in line with the rest of the center. The parapet would be the maximum height of the building and subject to the approval of Staff. 8. Boardmember Wright inquired about the play equipment. Members discussed with the Applicant the color and material to be used; the floor material, the height, the sun cover, the number of levels, and where it was located. Members felt it should be heavily landscaped to not be visible from Highway 111. Planning Commission Chairwoman Barrows asked that the height be reduced one level. Boardmember Campbell stressed his disapproval of the wrought iron fencing. He felt it gave it a "kennel" look. Mr. Tom Childers, Washington/Adams Group stated they could work with Staff to redesign a more appropriate fencing. 9. Boardmember Campbell questioned the Applicant regarding the material used in the awning. He felt the material gave off to much of a glowing effect at night. Discussion followed with the Applicant regarding the material to be used. 10. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the awnings were a good opportunity to integrate the colors of the center and enhance the architectural design of the center. Mr. Oley stated he felt they had integrated the colors of the center into the design and the redlyellow were the corporate colors and they were needed for identification. Boardmember Anderson stated the "Happy Star" and sign were the identification for the restaurant but the awnings need to tie into the center colors. Mr. Carl Karcher, applicant stated that the building was set back from Highway III and with the heavy landscaping the colors were needed to help catch the public attention. Discussion followed between the Applicant and the Boardmembers. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-Q04, subject to Stafrs recommendations. The motion died for lack of a second. 12. Boardmember Rice moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-004, subject to Staff's recommendations and with the above noted amendments including amending conditions to require the awning colors be the same DRB12-2 5 Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 as the center and with Staff approval and that the play equipment be reduced by one level. Boardmember Campbell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. i~-6J-" IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Boardmember Anderson asked that the minutes be amended to show he was in attendance. Boardmember Curtis asked that page 4, C.2. the word "potion" be changed to "portion". Boardmember Campbell asked that page 4, C.3. the word "decorative nature" be changed to "decorative texture"; that the word "lumpy" on page 6, C.6. be deleted; and that page 5, 0.6. have verbiage added to the effect, "that no exterior signage would be provided for any tenant occupying the interior arcade". There being no further corrections to the minutes, Boardmember Rice moved and Boardmember Curtis seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of November 4, 1992, as corrected. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER A. Boardmember Curtis asked Staff to bring before the Committee on a future agenda a discussion regarding City standards for design concepts for Highway III and other geographical areas of the City. B. Boardmember Anderson requested that Staff require projects brought before the Board be more complete to give the Board a better opportunity to review what is being proposed. C. Boardmember Campbell asked Staff to define what was the Boards purview for discussion relative to the projects. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed the Board responsibilities with the Members. VI. ADJO~NT It was moved by Boardmember Rice and seconded by Boardmember Wright to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on January 6, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 8: 10 P.M., December 2, 1992. DRB12-2 6