1990 10 03 DRB.J6
b 4 kQa&reu
•
��� • • /
AGENDA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF 1,A Q-JINTA
A Regular Meeting to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quints, California
October 3 , 1990
5:30 P-M.
I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes for September 5, 1990
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Architectural Plans for residences for Tract 24774; a request of Vista
Development for the northwest corner oFMadison and 54th Avenue.
B. Sign Program for One Eleven La Quinta; a request of Transpacific
Development Company for the northeast corner of Highway 111 and
Washington Street.
V. OTHER
A. Continued discussion of entry signs.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
DRB/AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1990
PROJECT: ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR RESIDENCES IN TRACT 24774
APPLICANT: VISTA DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET & 54TH AVENUE
BACKGROUND:
This tract was originally approved in September 1989. A minor
change, enlarging the lots was granted in April 1990. The
number of single family lots will be 119. The property is
presently in the county area and scheduled for annexation
around November of this year.
PROPOSAL:
Four single story plans are proposed varying in size from 1853
to 2625 square feet. Each plan would have two different front
elevations. Architectural style is primarily somewhat ranch
and Mediterranean with exterior materials consisting of stucco,
concrete tile roofs, wood trim, brick & stone veneer and
shutters. The exterior materials would be desert colors
ranging from white to tan, beige, and red used brick.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Front elevations are attractive and well proportioned.
2. Eave overhangs, except over front door entry ways, are
generally minimal.
3. Flat side and rear elevations need additional
architectural treatment through the use of popouts around
windows and/or doors.
4. Plans 1 & 2 can be provided with a 2 or 3 car garage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review plans in conjunction with Staff comments and determine
acceptability. The Design Review Board recommendation will
then be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Architectural plans
2. Color schedule
DRB10/3.SS/CS
N
20
N
ul
AO
AC
^m O
AO
AO
I+f
Hr
tJl
O0r r
XOC
Hr
Hr
>
N O
N O
m 0
K I O
a p
A p
m
m
n
1}ggq0�
t}p0
1bb0
0
p
V
b
y�
3
A0
In0
m0
YO
AO
cl
YO
t0
M
b
byy
O
yCyy�
Jz
cz
Hz
Hz
rn
J r
O C
Q� r
I r
A r
A C
[L
Hm
H[�
Nm
N m
I m
Hm
x
x
x
x
H x
x
n
n
0
I
I
I
m
I m
I m
n
I
I
I
r
A r
N r
ii
li
X
X
X
H
1
1
I
N
n
3
N
<
Cni
n
'LJ O
N
n
rt H
rt
n <
m m i
m
O W
N
Om
m
0
3 '3
A 3
B H
n
U C7
O 0❑
0
0 3
p
Nt-]
3 3
m Am
0 3
C lJtm
0
2 Nm
0
mNm
p �
C C4
G.
'L1
zNm
toUm
C
b a;c
9ATl
m A'm
m AXf
Zn
n
7 n
p
n
H p
<H
G
H
0 0
H
m 0
H
O O
n H
'S 0
H
O
H
r O
!a
0
z
m
m z
m
z
m
b z
H m
z
m
r z
m m
r 7
m b•
m o
z
c
n m m n
n m m n
n m m n
n m m n
m
O} H C
0 A Ha
O z H O
moor
1
m o r
moor
moor
zo
H o
H o
i
H o
ram'+ o
m
m
m
m
0
0
0
0
ro v �b c
a
7 a
ro b >S a
my 7 P c
0 o
mz
HWHH
nnma
00
z m
N.
q
H m H H
nnma
N H H
n (q(
�H m H H
nnma
z m
H
m z
m z
rn z y
C
yM�
m m q
p H [^
m m y
O H r
m z
H m
m�
1H0
p H
H r
H C
f
in in r
[n cn r
H
H r
N H
N H
ao H
O O N
O O H
N
d° d° N
WIN�]
H
r
r
N N r
N N C
N N r
8
m
m
o+wm
awn
.owm
m
Nr
to tnr
Hr
H r
Hr
to cnr
m
J h1
oW d° '*1
J h1
J hj
J
d° aW m
A m
m
A m
A m
A m
m
H
H
H F+ H
H
H
H
H H H
H H
H
VI N H
H
H
H
UI (J1 H
m
m
t0 W m
m
m
m
10 W m
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1990
PROJECT: SIGN PROGRAM FOR ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER
APPLICANT: TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 & WASHINGTON STREET
BACKGROUND:
The project is a shopping center which was approved in April,
1990. One of the conditions was that a sign program be
approved for the center. The Design Review Board's action in
this case will be a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
The shopping center includes
retail shops, freestanding pads
criteria in varying degrees of
the main center identification,
most of the pads.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S REVIEW:
several major retail tenants,
and two service stations. Sign
detail have been submitted for
3 majors, the retail shops, and
The Design Review Board's review of the sign program is to be
for colors, style, proportion, materials, and architectural
compatibility.
Once the Board has made a recommendation, the Planning
Commission will review the program based on your recommendation
and other Municipal Code criteria. The Planning Commission
review includes adjustments regarding sign numbers, sizes and
locations.
PROPOSAL:
1. CENTER I.D. SIGN (See page 3 of sign program):
A. Main identification signs for entire center.
B. Monument sign with exterior of cement
stucco (beige in color to match building walls)
placed along street perimeters (see page 5).
DRB10/3.01/CS -1-
C. Internally illuminated plexiglas inserts for
major tenants names and logo.
D. Monument style should match "Southwest" style
of center.
E. Plexiglas colors and logo design are unknown at
time of writing.
2. MONUMENT SIGN (See page 4a, 4b, 4c)
A. Identification signs proposed for freestanding
pads and placed along street perimeters (See
page 5). These signs not permitted in centers
of this type. However, the Planning Commission
can approve them as a part of the program
adjustment.
B. -Signs are smaller but similar in concept to
center identification signs.
3. ALBERTSON'S SIGN (See page 6, 7 & 18)
A. Standard Albertson's sign proposed,
38' 6" by 3' to 5' (Logo) high, consisting of
122 square feet.
B. "Liquor" & " Food -Drug" are also proposed.
Signs of this type are not permitted.
C. Sign consists of individually illuminated blue
plexiglas letters with standard bronze sheet
metal sides and bronze trim cap edges.
D. Sign is proposed to be located on high tower
area at front of market.
E. No color samples submitted yet.
4. PAYLESS DRUG (See page 8, 9 & 18)
A. Standard Payless Drug sign proposed,
36" or 52" high by 44' long, consisting of 154
square feet.
B. Sign consists of individually illuminated
letters, with plexiglas faces.
C. No information on colors has been submitted.
D. Sign is proposed to be located in middle of
building face between two tower areas.
DRB10/3.01/CS -2-
5. MISCELLANEOUS MAJOR TENANTS (See pages 10-13)
A. No information other than the location on
building face given.
B. These signs can be reviewed when tenants are
obtained.
6. WAL-MART (See pages 14-17, 22)
A. Standard Wal-Mart sign is proposed, 5' high by
37' long, consisting of 185 square feet.
B. Program shows other miscellaneous signs such as
"Pharmacy", "Satisfaction Guaranteed" & "We
Sell For Less". Signs of this type are not
permitted.
C. No information on colors, materials or
illumination source, if any, is given.
7. Minor Tenant Signs - (primary) Retail Shops & Pads
(See page 23, 25-27)
A. Wall signs proposed, 24" or 30" high, (tower
locations), length 750 of lease width to
maximum of 50 square feet.
B. Signs are proposed to be rectangular painted
aluminum cans with plexiglas faces.
C. Program proposes that national or regional
tenants with more than 5 outlets be allowed to
use their standard sign.
D. Colors proposed are white, red, blue, green,
yellow, or as approved by owner and architect.
8. Minor Tenant Signs (Secondary or Pedestrian)
A. Purpose is to identify shop to pedestrian since
main sign is not visible on walkway.
B. Hanging plexiglas sign of 12" high by 3' 6"
long proposed.
C. Colors proposed are white, red, blue, green,
yellow, or as approved by owner and architect.
DRB10/3.01/CS -3-
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. All signs should architecturally blend with the project.
Consideration should be given to shape, colors, materials
and style.
2. For sign program to be complete, adequate information
should be available for layperson to determine by looking
at sign program, exact sign allowed. Presently that
level of detail is not available.
3. Exact color and in some cases, material samples are
needed.
4. Miscellaneous signs that do not identify business name
are architecturally disrupting and unattractive.
5. Since major tenants utilize a larger amount of frontage,
it is reasonable for their signs to be different than
those of the smaller retail tenants.
6. The rectangular can signs for the tenants is not
imaginative or particularly compatible with the
"Southwest" style of the center.
7. National or regional tenants in minor tenant shops should
comply with sign program.
8. Minor tenant signs should be limited to one background
color and 2 or 3 letter colors.
9. Close relationship between hanging pedestrian signs and
building architecture should dictate use of compatible
material other than plexiglas.
CONCLUSION:
Proposed sign program is not complete. There is enough
information to recommend preliminary approval. Such an
approval would necessitate that any missing criteria be
submitted prior to the first permit being issued. An option
would be to require revisions prior to making a recommendation
to the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review submitted sign program and based on Staff comments,
determine acceptability.
ATTACHMENTS-
1. Proposed sign program
DRB10/3.01/CS -4-
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
September 5, 1990
5:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. Vice Chairman Llewellyn brought the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. and
Boardmember Michael Platt led the flag salute. Vice Chairman Llewellyn
asked for a roll call.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, David Harbison, John Walling,
Michael Platt, Planning Commission Representative Peter Zelles, Vice
Chairman Llewellyn.
B. Absent: Chairman Rice
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Planning Commissioner Zelles moved and Boardmember Platt seconded
the motion to approve the Minutes of August 1, 1990, as submitted,
unanimously approved.
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. A request of Sunrise Company for review of seven unit types for use in
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 asked Staff to explain what they mean by
"better" elevations. Staff stated that they needed to be more
defined, less conceptual.
3. Allan Levin, Sunrise Company, gave a brief description of the
units to be presented. He further stated that the setbacks would
adhere to the City Code requirements. In reference to more
detail work on the side elevations, he stated that they did not
MINDRB-9/5
have more detail because of the zero lot line concept units and
the blank wall is adjacent to the next unit. Additionally,
landscaping is used to cover any blank wall areas.
4. Ben Rover, Architect, Sunrise Company, described each of the
units they were presenting.
Planning Commissioner Zelles inquired what the price range
would be. Mr. Levin stated they would range from $150,000 to
$750,000+.
6. Vice Chairman Llewellyn asked if Staff was comfortable with the
side elevations. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that the
reputation of Sunrise had proven to be a quality product.
Boardmember Walling stated that on the zero lot line units should
have a buffer to break up the long wall.
7. There being no further questions, Boardmember Harbison moved'
to approve the unit plans as submitted with additional side
architectural treatment where feasible. Boardmember Walling
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ih�,7t 9,) - vs�
B . A request of Landmark Land Company for
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 Paul Anderson dismissed himself due to a possible
conflict of interest.
3. Mr. Ray Lopez, Landmark Land Company presented the proposed
landscaping plans for the median. He described the plants and
irrigation system to be used.
4. Discussion followed regarding the type of trees to be used and a
general consensus of approval of the plan.
5. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Platt and
seconded by Commissioner Zelles to approve the plans as
submitted. Unanimously approved with Boardmember Anderson
abstaining. /;;/ ) o,;,
C. PLOT PLAN 90-453 AND VARIANCE 90-013. A request of Oranco
Development for review of a 3,550 square foot commercial building in the
Village at La Quinta Specific Plan area.
MINDRB-9/5
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. Vice Chairman Llewellyn asked if this project was within the flood
plane area. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that it was within
the 1-foot zone and they were in compliance.
3. Commissioner Zelles inquired if the Applicant was in favor of
Staff recommendations. Staff stated the Applicant was here to
speak.
4. Boardmember Walling asked if Staff was asking the Board to
continue the matter till the Staff recommendations were met.
Principal Planner Sawa stated that it was at the discretion of the
Board. Staff would be comfortable with whatever they decided.
Mr. Earl Florence, Architect, Arvid Johnson Associates spoke on
behalf of the Applicant and stated that they had no serious
problem with Staff recommendations, but were confused as to
what was being asked of them in comparison to what is already
built in this area. They would request some direction from the
Board as to what criteria is expected of them. He went on to
explain the changes they were making in compliance with Staff
recommendations.
Boardmembers Walling and Anderson had questions regarding the
16-foot trellis. Different ideas as to ways to cantilever the trellis
were discussed.
Boardmember Platt inquired as to what materials were to be used
on the covered parking. Discussion followed as to what types of
materials would work best in the desert.
8. Mr. Tom Knowlen, 73-381 Elkhorn, Palm Desert, the owner of the
building spoke regarding the in -lieu fee for parking spaces. He
asked that the Board give them the direction as to what is
required.
Boardmembers continued to discuss the Staff recommendations
with the Applicant and give direction as to what the Board was
asking of the Applicant.
MINDRB-9/5
10. Boardmember Anderson stated that they were impressed with the
willingness of the Applicant to work with the City and realized
their frustration as this was the first application to go through
the Village Zoning requirements. He went on to give some ideas
for cantilevering over the doors, the covered parking materials
and tile around the scuppers, materials to be used on the risers
on the steps.
11. Mr. Florence inquired of the Board regarding the restriction of
signs on the awning. The Board had no objections.
12. Commissioner Zelles asked if the Applicant had been made aware
of the Sign Ordinance. Principal Planner Sawa stated that in the
application process the Applicant is made aware of the Sign
Ordinance.
13. Boardmember Walling stated that the awning sign could work well
if it was designed to play into the trellis and was one continuous
awning throughout the length of the building. He also suggested
that the Applicant put a small planting area with plants going up
the walls between the windows and doors to break up the wall;
also in the back put 3-foot curb triangles off the back curb and
have large canopy trees.
14. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson to
continue the matter to a special session to review the plans when
revised. Commissioner Zelles suggested that the Board not hold
the Applicant up, but grant an approval of the project with the
recommendations the Board requires being sent to the Planning
Commission so they can confirm the changes. Principal Planner
Sawa suggested that the Board approve the project with the
Conditions and add a condition that prior to final working
drawings being prepared, the matter would come before the
Board.
15. Boardmember Anderson amended his motion to approve the
project subject to following conditions:
a. Specific sign program shall be approved by the Design
Review Board prior to issuance of building permit.
b. Preliminary and final landscaping/irrigation plans shall be
approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of
building permit. Final plans not to be prepared until
preliminary plans have been prepared. Street trees with
grates per specific plan are to be provided with landscape
areas (especially vines or trellis) added adjacent to street
sides of project. Landscaping fingers to be provided
between parking stalls to provide code required shading
MINDRB-9/5
iD
MINDRB-9/5
of parking area. Shade trellis or cover, may be used in
place of landscaping fingers.
C. Architectural treatment shall be added on parking lot sid,
and side of building to be equivalent to street sides of
building per code requirements. Repeat trellis treatment
(extend 16" out from building) over rear doors and
provide tile or other architectural treatment around
scuppers.
d. Trellis structures, especially rafters, should consist of
heavy beams or be constructed of decorative metal.
e. The stucco shall be provided with a decorative trowelled
finish per Village Specific Plan.
f. The face of the steps adjacent to streets shall be provided
with tile or other decorative treatment for safety and
aesthetic purposes.
g. Prior to working drawings being started, revised plans
per the above conditions, shall be submitted to the Design
Review Board for approval.
Commissioner Zelles seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously. fjlli;,
Presentation by TKD Landscape Architects on Eisenhower Medians.
Mr. Tom Doczi, TKD Landscape Architects, 333 N. Palm Canyon,
Palm Springs, presented the report of medians island proposals.
Boardmember Walling inquired as to a construction starting date.
The Applicant stated that they were projecting a starting date in
late October.
Boardmember Anderson asked what the overall design would be.
Mr. Doczi stated that as they approached the Village, a different
palm tree would be used with a more dense shrubbery.
Discussion followed regarding the types of plants that are
throughout the City, and the use of landscaping lighting.
Boardmember Harbison suggested that from the cost perspective,
it would be best to install the sleeve during construction.
Following discussion it was moved by Boardmember Walling and
seconded by Boardmember Harbison to approve the proposal as
submitted. Unanimously approved. /////'l
V. It was suggested that the City entry signs be tabled until Chairman Rice
returns. Unanimously approved.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Planning Commission Representative Zelles and seconded by
Boardmember Harbison to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review
Board on October 3, 1990, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design
Review Board was adjourned at 7:00 P.M., September 5, 1990.
MINDRB-9/5