Loading...
1991 07 03 DRB Minutes MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 3, 1991 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Vice Chairman Llewellyn brought the meeting to order at 5: 30 P.M. and Boardmember Walling led the flag salute. Vice Chairman Llewellyn asked for a roll call. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, John Walling, Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Planning Commission Representative H. Fred Mosher, and Vice Chairman Llewllyn. B. Absent: ChairmanRice C. It was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by Boardmember Anderson to excuse Chairman Rice from the meeting. 111. CONSENT CALENDAR A. It was moved by Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Walling to approve .the Minutes of June 5, 1991, as submitted. Unanimously approved. IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Public Use Permit 91-011; a request of the La Quinta Arts Foundation for approval to construct a 6,000 square foot administration/display building in the SR Zone. 1. Boardmember Walling excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. 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. DRBMIN-7/3 1 3. Boardmember Curtis asked the Applicant if the building allowed for any expansion. The Applicant stated it did. 4. Discussion followed regarding the Civic Center design and concern that the building lend itself to that design. It was stated that it was designed in keeping with the Civic Center design. 5. There being no further discussion it was moved by Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Llewellyn to recommend approval of Public Use Permit 91-011 to the Planning Commission. Unanimously approved. B. Public Use Permit 91-010; a request of Michael and Glenda Bangerter for approval of elevations for a child care center. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Michael Bangerter presented a report of the Center to the Board. Members inquired as to the location of the trash enclosure. After discussion it was noted the enclosure would remain where it had been designed. 3. Boardmember Curtis asked the Applicant what the dimensio~s of the main building were. It was stated 16 feet high and 44 feet wide. Discussion followed between the Applicant and the Board regarding ways to break up the length of the building, shadowing for the windows from the north exposure, and landscaping and trees to break up the parking spaces. 4. Boardmember Curtis asked that a 6 foot wall or chain link fence be built at the rear to block the channel. 5. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to recommend approval of Public Use Permit 91-010 to the Planning Commission based on Staff conditions. Unanimously approved. C. Tentative Tract 23269; a request of the Williams Development for approval of a new architectural elevation. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. DRBMIN-7/3 2 2. Boardmember Curtis asked if a noise study had be done for the project. The Applicant stated there had been a noise study but it only addressed the two story units as the wall would mitigate the one story units. 3. Boardmember Anderson stated he wanted additional treatment and some type of shading for the windows. All members concurred that additional treatment and shading needed to be done as well as additional roof tile colors. 4. Ms. Marty Butler, Applicant addressed the Board and stated they had no objections to the conditions. 5. Boardmember Harbison stated he felt there was a security problem created with the recessed area near the front door on Plan #2 and asked the Applicant to address this. In addition he felt the fireplace should be moved on Plan #4 and centered more to allow better functioning of the fireplace. 6. Following discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Walling to recommend approval of Tentative Tract 23269 new architectural elevation to the Planning Commission subject to Staff conditions. Unanimously approved. D. Tentative Tract 23519; a request of Santa Rosa Developers for approval of a perimeter landscaping plan. DRBMIN-7/3 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Curtis asked the Applicant to increase the radii by decreasing the length of the sidewalk on Miles Avenue. Discussion followed as to the distance and width of the sidewalk. 3. Boardmember Anderson asked Staff if there was a standard for meandering sidewalks. Staff replied at this time there was none, but would look into the matter and report back to the Board. 4. Brian Esgate, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and stated they needed direction from the Board as to what they would require. 5. Boardmember Anderson stated that in addition to a more meandering sidewalk the design needed to address the type of plants being used. 6. Commissioner Barrows stated that the Mexican Palo Verde needs to be replaced with the indigenous Blue Palo Verde. 3 7. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to recommend approval of the perimeter landscaping plans for Tentative Tract 23519. The Design Review Board directed Staff to instruct the Applicant to increase the sidewalk meander on Miles A venue and reselect some of the planting materials in coordination and with assistance from Coachella Valley Water District. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER A. Street Name Signs for the Village; consideration of street name signs for the Village Specific Plan. 1 . It was moved by Boardmember Llewellyn and seconded by Boardmember Walling to continue this matter to a later date. Unanimously approved. V. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Vice Chairman Llewellyn and seconded by Boardmember Walling to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on August 7, 1991, at 5: 30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 6:55 P.M., July 3,1991. DRBMIN-7/3 4 MINUTES OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT July 3, 1991 Review of Architectural Elevations for Units to be constructed on 44 lots in Tract 23269; a request of WIlliams Development Company Boardmember Curtis questioned whether a noise study had been made. Associate Planner Lainis stated it had been made and a noise wall was recommended. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the units were appealing but again stressed the issue of shading for the windows. Even though the units may pass Title 24 requirements the need additional treatment to address the lack of shading. Marty Williams, Applicant stated they would have their architects address this problem. Boardmember Curtis inquired as to why only two roof tile colors and would they have any objections to adding additional colors. Ms. Williams stated they would not. Ms. Williams stated her only objection or concern was regarding Condition #5 regarding two story units along Fred Waring to Adams Street. She stated they would design another single story units to avoid monotony. Boardmember Harbison stated his concern for security for the Plan #2 unit with the bedroom next to the front door with a cut away next to the front door. Ms. Williams stated she would consult her architect regarding the issue. In addition Plan #4 needs to have the fireplace moved more toward the center of the house rather that on a corner. This would enable the fireplace to function properly. Boardmember Barrows and Walling agreed with the need for additional shading on the windows. Discussion followed regarding the need for the shading. Boardmember Anderson moved to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the project subject to Staff recommendations as well as additional treatment to address the shading of windows, additional roof tile colors, consideration of moving the fireplace on Plan #4 to the center of the house, and resolve the potential security problem created with the recessed area near the front door on Plan #2.