The URL can be used to link to this page

1993 01 06 DRBAL 1981- 1992 Ten Carat A Special Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California January 6, 1993 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute H. ROLL CALL III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Tentative Tract 23269; a request of Century Homes for review of architectural elevations for proposed new Unit #5 to be constructed on 11 lots in Phase 5. B. Plot Plan 92-494; a request of the Lube Shop for approval of a plot plan application. C. Sign AWrova192-190; a request of Simon Motors for approval of a freestanding sign on Highway 111. D. 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 ±267,272 sq. ft. commercial shopping center located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111. E. La Ouinta 66-Acre Mater Plan; a request of the City for review of alternative plans for the City owned property located northeast of the intersection of 48th Avenue and Jefferson Street. F. Aooroval of Landscape Design for Center Medians; a request of the City for review of landscape designs for center medians on Washington Street between Singing Palms Drive and 48th Avenue. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - Approval of the Minutes of the regular Design Review Board Meeting of October 7, 1992, and December 2, 1992, and the special meeting of November 18, 1992. " 001 V. OTHER Discussion of City entry signs - verbal presentation. VI. ADJOURNMENT 002 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: JANUARY 6, 1993 PROJECT: TRACT 23269 - REVIEW OF HOUSE MIX CHANGE AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR PROPOSED NEW UNIT #5 TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON 11 LOTS IN PHASE 5 APPLICANT: CENTURY HOMES LOCATION: LA QUINTA DEL REY, LOTS 97-99, 127, 129, 133-135, 248, 250-251, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE. THESE LOTS ARE LOCATED ON SANITA DRIVE, LAS VISTAS DRIVE, AND LA PALMA DRIVE. BACKGROUND: 1. Tract 23269 totaling 255 lots, has been developed by a number of developers including Triad, La Quinta Vistas, and Williams Company. 2. Century Homes purchased 76 lots in 1991 and received Planning Commission approval on October 8, 1991, for four unit types to be built within Phases 1,3 and 5 (Lots 79-94, 96-148, 245-251). 3. On December 16, 1992, Century Homes applied for approval of a fifth unit for Phase 5. PROPOSAL: The proposed new fifth unit will be built on eleven of the remaining 18 lots in Phase 5. The table below describes the proposed new unit as it compares to the four approved units: NEW PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 PLAN 5 # Sq. Footage Unit 1006 1262 1400 1567 1678 # Sq. Footage Bonus Rm 205 0 206 165 273 # Sq. Footage Garage 591 410 608 556 372 # Stories 1 1 1 2 1 # Different 3 3 3 3 3 Elevations # Bedrooms 2 3 3 3 3 # Bathrooms 1 2 2 3 3 # Family Rooms 0 1 1 1 1 # Car Garages 2 2 2 2 2 DRB1/6.F1/CS -1- The applicant also proposes to switch the approved 2B plan to 2A on Lot 128. The 2A plan provides a bonus room adjacent to the garage and should make for at least as nice of a unit, if not better, for this lot. The applicant proposes to use the original approved colors and materials for this new unit. Seven different color schemes using three different roof tile colors, five different colors for facia and garage doors, seven alternate stucco colors, and seven alternate accent colors were approved. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. 2. The contemporary Spanish/Mediterranean architectural styles of the fifth unit elevations are similar to that used in the surrounding units. RECOMMENDATION: Review the plans in conjunction with Staff comments and determine if they are acceptable or if revisions are needed. Attachments: 1. Locality plan 2. Tract Map 3. Architectural Plans and Elevations (full scale) 4. Exhibit A - Color Schedule 5. Exhibit B - Proposed House Mix 6. House Mix Map 7. Approved Elevations 00q DRB1/6.F1/CS -2- ^i Alk \ ATTACHMENT No. 1 faED w_A_a►p pRM _ TR 23269 g ®® ®m i a < I � a , W 0 I 1 IIIIlI11lIII11IIIlIlil1111/ i m'r44 I INDIO n;4 Wmm�Ugrp �4I cc ny dt q�\ wEStwrtap Hp pR1YE Vol rirrrr jM �' '''',/r'r��Ilrrr rrrS)O r'r'rrllrryr -00, rrrrrrrrr//Ir/�� )G q ��rrr1 rl,nrlrrh� � rrr►ghrrrrrphnr rigrr rrM�frflfiiUllltttt►t11►1W�' LOCATION • t UV 006 h CO W^ 1 09 S JN 1S'9HS -7-W ( P 'ON .Z3.y, , h 4 �zv6p.ze7(2/6pga,).;g avATTACHMENT NO.2 . p` �.pt yl Ls r N "i It / (zS YIEi - SOS V 2fiJ 1 �Q tv ti W O .-._.-.� _ - - — ' .7 /I/2��--� di�/i—fix-�-'• —�— o h �1 - O V Z u� h p VJ PI 986/J 6S'y86/ Y6 `F6 Wd 'ON N N �.: — -- • ame 1��HS 33S Ism m a/ 06 YZfi] (.6E'YZfl) 9F POCI [.68'869zJ�P['81�9Z) ZG'8Y9Z \ Oor J �o O V .virry .vn.irs..�s r ^ o ♦ V � n at ZZ v w Attachment 4 EXHIBIT "A" COLOR SCHEDULE LA QUINTA DEL REY TRACT #23269 REVISION: DECEMBER 15. 1992 PHASE 5 ............ ...... ....... ........... .. ............. Aoc*M,.w . ..-I....., XY-851 - Z6�4900 101 go 213 5 10171 P-14 101 97 sxCR I 2 16172 P-122 so -am XY-873 so-003 go M 7 13172 P-97 101 XY-305 102 ga MR 4 10171 P-7 so -Ma is -Igo SO-613 100 3AX 3 is= P-111 XY-6= 404 XY-G= 127 SCR a 16290 P-17 30-819 16-20D 30--819 izs 20 s 101711 P-14 lot XY-M 11011 129 W(AR I is= P-21 12-161' XY-872 3-16P 130 XG 4 10171 P-7 so-813 15-190 so-813 131 2AR 2 16172 P-122 so -am XY-9" so--aw 132 3XA 3 is= P-111 XY-6= 40$ XY-622 133 MCC 7 15172 P-97 101 xy-310 it" 134 SBR a MW P-17 SO-612 16-200 so-819 135 SXA 5 1017'1 P-14 101 XY-M 101 248 Ma 1 IS290 P-21 12-18T xy-972 3-1 ap 249 MCA 4 10171 P-7 50-M3 is -Igo so-813 260 SAR 2 16172 P-122 so -am XY-973 so-aw 251 MCC 3 is= P-111 XY-= 406 XY-= ROOF: PIONEER ROOFING CO 161 72-SONOMA BLEND 16290 - COROOVA BLEND 1 C171 - HACMNOA MEM STAINIPAINT. OLD QUAKER PAINT STUCCO: MERI= STUCCO n Olt EXTER 1 OR F I N I SH SCHEDULE 1JOTES DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 2 of 2 Series/Location Tract No. Phase No. Revised: La Quinta Del Rey 23263 5 5/12/92 STUCCO: All stucco to be Merlex Stucco. STAIN/PAINTS: Old Quaker Paint. ROOF: Pioneer Roofing Co: #15172, Sonoma Blend; #15290, Cordova Blend; #10171, Hacienda Blend. NOTES: 1. Entry door shall be semi -gloss, all six sides, color as indicated. 2. All exposed sheet metal shall be primer, one coat, and then painted. 3. All roof jacks and vents shall be primer, one coat, and then painted to match roof color; flat finish. 4. Electrical meter box, telephone and TV/cable box shall be painted to match adjacent wall/stucco color. 5. Manufacturers, materials and colors shall be as specified, NO SUBSTITUTION. 6. Questions and/or conflicts shall be resolved prior to Subcontractor proceeding, failure to do so shall not relieve the Subcontractor from correcting any and all misapplied colors at no cost to the Owner or to the Architect. '..vu. nog EXHIBIT "B" P R O P O S E D H 0 U S E M I X T R A C T 2 3 2 6 9 P H A S E 5 Lot 96 Plan 2B (no change) 97 Plan SCXR 98 Plan 5A 99 Plan SBRX 100 PLAN 3AX (no change) 127 Plan 5CR 128 Plan 2A 129 Plan SARX 130 Plan 3BX (no change) 131 Plan 2AR (no change) 132 Plan 3AX (no change) 133 Plan 5CX 134 Plan 5BR 135 Plan 5AX 248 Plan 5BX - Proposed Model 249 Plan 3AX (no change) 250 Plan 5AR 251 Plan 5CX Attachment 5 JP\ x 10 YOU ARE HERE zs� HS Z I" �'� Z" Attach syR sxc ment 6 x K x IAX XR ^ IAX x LAS VISTAS DRIVE AROSA WAY 4 -0 t� o l p Attachment 7 �, r rrrrrer �• t r • r e r r r r a r a r r e r• r r= a c s c r r : .. ...� ft�tt�((6ffi�t't►��t`I[°f fttli lift;°tEn;r�f,,,;j� �lfit}r �<<tlzt tsti t�., tl!()•1 �i s i� t a t� , � , iri, � t►} n tjti� Z tIN ! f i if; ;.i i t -`i i{ il� li. f fi• f!t •ttr 1 'P �h♦?�. 1�. (AOUPlrADE6 NEV <"'�f w M ! 040 a I G1 i 013 m m 1 - m Fin ill' 1. -`. .z 0 a v i i -I ti m44 tG y, o �± z m m n I-- 'o u I Y�SI LJ L:J �Sa z E ; a 6.. CRY HOMES COMMSIWTIES�.. • 1A dI ADEL REV'-'. - .. MCT#23260 ....zip-.U.1�-..� r m T e = �p � ti �4 11 O j•� � �4 O- L o- yly � r}}� , in--. _ yam• .€'• t r » ,r § C�QM�MUMi1E$ :� . Aauwt� lz m z m I:Q B El 5m 00 E 5 r r r r r e r r r r, r r s r r r r r r{ r s r r r r r s r s s s r❑ 0= t:{iftrl+.oti liiil:rp;��i{it {jt?il,ti.�.';i:;i{�Eltll(E. �" il:�l, ii j r it` ttt�t�r tF li3 I}'`}E,I' t ,KF Itt (lj i fI��Ii o t}tr({Fryj irrllttj �� { f E}E tj t t 11} t t { r Ft}tr trt tli Z it ''CENTL RY HOMES COAA,RIP9'f1ES - I :z m: r-, m O m m mm M z Z m I m .z Ll z D 41ACcsse ®OBI cUrrURY HOMES COMMIRSMS1 CT#23209 f .—A v i aft' i J_1 o� s i F 1 .020 MOO, �?.� -n r- 0 0 ;o T z WE it .1 I it 't till 11, i a I I � 1 11 1 1 111 W Iz D O m 'j, to 0 sJ ' 4`� �y: � I 1 N k.BEN1AMIN AGUILAR � OCIAiES INCrs � �a,t� �r 11 � ,� ��,:: a,L. Pvs •.�w�K�jy.��--i. it Inn U 02r; Y & »� C3 �� k ƒ � i � ;ƒ .:. . » ƒ _ !k ` ' EI 2! } { qhq m M.V 9\ } \\ I BENIMAIN PGUFigIEAA b �EI iS ev� dAB50Q Es vl sa r + '� iN a Y �•1..•F• � N�rtivy • ''. itai]�al 7SG l:66 � : f 0 2'1 431® . 6 f�1 i T T II '` a r1 m: r= m: >T t_ o; z it s r i CENTURY HOMES�WM uo ADE j { m i �1 a 02 JSS[I I It STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: JANUARY 6, 1993 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 92-494 APPLICANT: THE LUBE SHOP (PETER STURGEON) ARCHITECT: GARY KNUTSON, ARCHITECT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF BUILDING PLANS AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR LUBE SHOP AND COIN OPERATED SELF CAR WASH IN 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111. BACKGROUND: The Applicant wishes to construct and operate an automotive lube shop and coin operated self car wash on the property which is located on the west side of Adams approximately midway between the new Wal-Mart and Highway 111. The site is one of the pad locations approved by Specific Plan 89-014. Presently the Applicant operates a similar lube shop in Cathedral City. Generally, services consist of oil changes, checking of vital fluids, chassis lubrications, and maintenance inspections. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The operation is designed as a drive-thru type of a layout with three lubrication bays whereby you enter from the south and exit to the north. Four car wash bays are laid out in a similar fashion to the west of the lubrication bays. Due to the nature of the layout, the building is a somewhat long "L" staped structure. The building consists of 3,740 square feet of area with the lube shop portion consisting of 2,560 square feet and car wash portion consisting of 1,180 square feet. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The building has been designed to be compatible with the shopping center in that the building has been designed to be architecturally similar to the approved Shell service station at the comer of Adams and Highway 111 to the south. The structure is basically a flat roofed structure which DRBST.076 i od9 utilizes arches and stepped wall features. The exterior materials are proposed to be a combination of stucco and split -faced block walls and facias with split -faced columns and some tile accent. The three lubrication bays would be provided with painted roll -up doors to match the building. The car wash bays would be left open with no doors. Two vacuum islands would be provided on the paved area to the north of the car wash bays. Part of the building on the south side at the east end would be a covered patio structure which would be utilized as a waiting area. On the north side of the building at the east end the plan shows an enclosed storage container area and trash enclosure area. The trash enclosure will need to be relocated since the trash company has notified the City and Applicant that they cannot and will not service the trash enclosure in its present location since it would require the trash truck to back out of the area for a distance of approximately 120 feet. An alternative trash location will need to be found and approved. LANDSCAPING: The Applicant has submitted as part of the site plan, a conceptual landscaping plan. The only plant material actually designated are the trees which are trees which are being utilized elsewhere in the shopping center or along the perimeter. It will be necessary for the Applicant to develop preliminary landscaping plans for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final working drawings for the landscaping and irrigation being provided. The landscaping plans show a curb -side sidewalk. The sidewalk which was recently installed is a meandering sidewalk. It should also be noted that major power poles and utility lines run along the edge of Adams Street and will influence the landscape design. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: Staff feels that the general architectural design and landscape concept is acceptable. There will be a need to refine certain items or provide further clarification. Staff would recommend that the following conditions be imposed by the Design Review Board: 1. The exterior colors utilized on the building shall match those used in the shopping center and be approved by Staff at the time working drawings are submitted. 2. A preliminary landscaping plan showing the existing meandering sidewalk shall be prepared and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to final working drawings for the landscaping and irrigation being prepared. Plant material shall be the same or similar to that used along the perimeter or parking area of the project. Landscaping immediately adjacent to the building in high visibility areas may be modified to reflect the desires of the Applicant. The landscaping plan shall show the location of the power poles and utility lines along the east side of the site. 3. The trash enclosure shall be relocated as required by Waste Management of the Desert. The revised location shall be approved by Staff and Waste Management. The location of the trash enclosure shall take into account traffic visibility and aesthetics. DRBST.076 2 03D 4. Due to the orientation of the service bays, Staff feels that the bays facing north should be screened somewhat from view of the property to the north. The site to the north is proposed to be a daycare center and a part of this project. A 6-foot high decorative masonry wall should be provided within the landscape area so that it provides screening in front of the three lube bays at a minimum. It may be possible to incorporate this wall as an extension of the container storage area. The wall should be located within the landscape area north of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board review the plans in light of the above Staff comments and recommended conditions. Should you feel the plans are acceptable, your recommendation for approval will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Plan exhibits DRBST.076 031 DAY-CARE 3500 SF O /O AREA b a a��ti 100 sIcr, uAD O 60. mf t-tA \ \\ a a p1 SHELL c STATION & CAR WASH 8 ��3 y (PAD 8. B74 �28R SF) a /- .V r 10 Boo CD SHOPS �1 _ \ 2 - PAD � C� t 9p00 SF IPp,cc 5� m.- 100' ` �' 9E _NIA�ENT- 51 GN O - f4tLCApING— —� — ,11 / APPROVED SIGNAL J � Vic I V) [Ty IMAI° 0 3 �L DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 6, 1993 CASE: SIGN APPLICATION 92-190 APPLICANT: SIMON MOTORS OWNER: MR. FRED SIMON REPRESENTATIVE: MR. SKIP BERG; DGI GRAPHICS REQUEST: TO INSTALL A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS CAR DEALERSHIP AT 78-611 HIGHWAY 111. THE SIGN IS 29-FEET HIGH AND APPROXIMATELY 126 SQUARE FEET. A SIGN ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BECAUSE THE SIGN EXCEEDS THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE STANDARDS. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: SIGNS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311A EXISTING ZONING/ LAND USE: CPS COMMERCIAL - AUTO DEALERSHIP BACKGROUND: The existing dealership was built on the property in 1982. Presently, Mr. Simon sells General Motors vehicles on the property which includes Cadillac, Pontiac, Buick & GM Trucks. The property is located at the southwest corner of Simon Drive and Highway 111 and the dealership is on approximately 4.0 acres. SIGN REQUEST: The applicant has requested one freestanding pylon sign for the property since one does not exist. The sign is 29-feet high and 126 square feet in size. The sign identifies the dealership and the types of cars/trucks which are sold at the site. The corporate identification colors (blue, red, black, etc.) are proposed for the sign names and the cabinet background will be white. The sign support and frame would be blue & "chrome" in color. The sign is proposed to be located at the intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive. 03� EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE: The existing sign ordinance requires that the applicant meet the following standards if a freestanding sign is to be built on the property: "Individual commercial uses, with a minimum of two hundred feet of street frontage and not a part of a larger complex, are permitted one freestanding business identification sign of up to one-half of the area permitted for attached signs, not to exceed fifty square feet. Freestanding sign area shall be subtracted from the total allowable attached sign area. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be twelve feet." SIGN ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: The applicant does not meet the requirements of the La Quinta Sign Ordinance. Therefore, staff cannot approve the applicant's sign request. The sign code does, however, allow the applicant the means to pursue a Sign Adjustment with the Planning Commission. The Sign Code states: Adjustments to permit additional sign area, additional numbers of signs, an alternative sign location, an alternative type of signage or additional height may be granted by the Planning Commission. The applicant for a planned sign program application must request the adjustment in writing on forms provided by the Planning and Development Department. The Planning Commission must find that one or more of the following facts exist when an adjustment is made: 1. Additional Area: a. To overcome a disadvantage as a result of an exception setback between the street and the sign or orientation of the sign location; b. To achieve an effect which is essentially architectural, sculptural, or graphic art; c. To permit more sign area in a single sign than is allowed, but less than the total allowed the site, where a more orderly and concise pattern of signing will result; d. To allow a sign to be in proper scale with its building or use; e. To allow a sign compatible with other conforming signs in the vicinity; f . To establish the allowable amount and location of signing when no street frontage exists or when, due to an unusual lot shape (e. g. , flag lot) , the street frontage is excessively narrow in proportion to the average width of the lot. 2. Additional number, to compensation for inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance. 039 3. Alternative locations: a. On -site. To transfer area from one wall to another wall or to a freestanding sign upon the finding that such alternative location is necessary to overcome a disadvantage caused by an unfavorable orientation of the front wall to the street or parking lot or an exceptional setback; b. Lots Not Fronting on a Street. To permit the placement of a sign on an access easement to a lot not having street frontage, at a point where viewable from the adjoining public street. In addition to any other requirements, the applicant shall submit evidence of the legal right to establish and maintain a sign within the access easement; c. Additionally, alternative on -site locations may be granted in order to further the intent and purposes of this chapter or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure. 4. Alternative Type of Sign. To facilitate compatibility with the architecture of structure(s) on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. 5. Additional Height. To permit additional height to overcome a visibility disadvantage. The applicant has applied to increase the height of the sign from 12-feet to 29-feet and an increase in sign size from 50 square feet to 126 square feet. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reviewed the requirements which could necessitate a larger sign or a higher sign that the standards of the Sign Ordinance. However, we find no reason to support the request based on the following summary: A. Additional Area: The sign location proposed is not in a location which is a disadvantage to the applicant. The sign is located in a highly visible location with excellent exposure to Highway 111, and no obstructions are apparent at this location (e.g. buildings, billboards, landscaping, etc.). A traffic signal is also proposed at Simon Drive and Highway 111 in the near future which will help the exposure to the property once installed. The applicant presently has building signs on the property which are visible to passing motorists, and vehicles which are displayed in front of the building (outside) adds to the marketability of the center. The surrounding properties are presently vacant which further helps the visibility of the dealership. The applicant also has over 400-feet of frontage on Highway 111 and another 500-feet of frontage on Simon Drive (east side of the site) to market his products. 03S B. Additional Height: No sight visibility problems are apparent at the site which would create a disadvantage to the proprietor. The Design Review Board should also be advised that the City has not approved any signs along Highway 111 which exceed the 12-feet height limit. Sight visibility problems have thus far not been an issue as the buildings are set back from the street 50 feet or more and the properties are also large enough to design a freestanding sign which is appropriate for the proposed business. We encourage the applicant to forego trying to identify all the makes of vehicles sold at the site and focus on designing a sign which specifies the dealer's name instead. CONCLUSION: Staff cannot find any valid reasons to recommend approval of the design or an allowance for this sign based on the existing Sign Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board recommend denial of the applicants request to exceed the provisions of the Sign Code based on the provisions of Section 9.212.030 F of the existing Sign Ordinance. Attachment: Vicinity Map Exhibits Letter from DGI Signs . 03F� Sanbom/Webb Inc. • TO Inttoducrion N c z 6 P.O. Box 1770 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Voice: 619-564-1961 Fax: 619-564-1761 DIVERSIFIED GRAPHIC INDUSTRIES CITY OF LA OUINTA 78-105 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 ATTN: GRES TROUSDELL; ASSOCIATE PLANNER RE: SIMON MOTORS DEAR GREG: 11-24-92 SIMON MOTORS WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL A PYLON DISPLAY AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF SIMON DRIVE, PERPENDICULAR TO HIGHWAY Ill. THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS THE PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS OF SECTION 9.212.030, "F" ADJUSTMENTS. 186 - 160 B 186 - 161 IA. WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE FOR THE SIMON PLAZA PROJECT THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS WALL DISPLAYS WILL RE OBSCURED BY THE PARKING GARAGE WHEN APPROACHING SIMON MOTORS FROM THE WEST. B. OUR SIGN IS A DUPLICATE OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATE SIGN PROGRAM. WE FEEL THIS DISPLAY IS ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING- C. THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMODATE THE FIVE LISTED PRODUCTS AND COMPANY. THIS DISPLAY ALLOWS MOTORIST TO INSTANTLY IDENTIFY THE AUTOMOBILES SIMON MOTORS OFFERS. IT IS A MORE CONCISE AND ORDERLY METHOD OF ADVERTISING. D. THE SIGN IS COMPATIBLE TO EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT. 2. BOTH THESE ITEMS ARE TRUE 039 P.O. Box 1770 La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Voice: 619-564-1961 Fax: 619-564-1761 DIVERSIFIED GRAPHIC MDIISTRIES 5. NE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE MOTORIST ADEQUATE TIME AND VISABILITY TO COMPREHEND THE MESSAGE. THE OVERALL DESIGN AND PANEL COLORS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING COLORS AND BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. AVERAGE COPY SIZE FOR THE AUTOMOBILE NAMES IS 12". THIS PROJECTS TO A READABILITY DISTANCE OF 460' - 525' OR ONE BLOCK OR LESS. SINCERELY, DIVERSIFIED GRAPHIC INDUSTRIES D. G. I. �TM. S. "SKIP" BERG n3q STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: JANUARY 6, 1993 PROJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022 AND PLOT PLAN 92-490, JEFFERSON SQUARE APPLICANT: E. F. P. CORPORATION (ED CARNES, VICE PRESIDENT) ARCHITECT: MHA; MICHAEL HURST REQUEST: 1. SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022: A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A FUTURE SHOPPING CENTER PROPOSED FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY I I I AND JEFFERSON STREET. 2. PLOT PLAN 92-490: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A +251,550 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON A PORTION OF A +23 ACRE SITE. THE CENTER WILL INCLUDE ON -SITE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON STREET. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) AND W-1 (WATER COURSE) BACKGROUND: The project was tentatively recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on November 18, 1992, and approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992, subject to the final plans being reviewed by both groups prior to construction plan check. A copy of the original conditions are attached. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: The City Council reviewed the proposal at their meeting of December 15, 1992, as a report of Planning Commission action. The City Council felt that the project architect and developer should reach a consensus on the final design of the shopping center prior to acquiring final approval of the project. The City Council voted to continue the case to their January 19, 1993 meeting and requested that the project be re-examined by the Design Review Board on January DRBST.074 1 01 6th and by the Planning Commission on January 12th, if possible. The City Council concerns or questions on the case were: 1. Could the roof line on Building #3 be redesigned so that it is similar in design to the rest of the shopping center? 2. Could the architect refine or upgrade the pedestrian arcade along the south side of building, mainly Buildings "C" and "F"? 3. Was the exposed neon tubing necessary? 4. Would a more traditional Spanish design theme be more appropriate for this location? The City Council discussed other elements of the project. However, their directive to the Design Review Board was that they would like the Board and the architect to refine the project architecture so that everybody involved knows exactly how the design of the shopping center will look if approved on January 19, 1993. RESUBMITTAL BY THE APPLICANT: The project proponent submitted the attached plans on December 23, 1992. The project architect has modified the architectural plans of the project in the following ways: 1. Upgraded the covered pedestrian arcade to include another design theme along portions of the south elevation (tile with double arch); 2. Varied the roof pitch throughout the project (4:12 & 3:12). 3. Changed the roof parapet design to include a rounded design and a tile roofed design (fake two story design) to accentuate the original design scenario; 4. Revised the access driveway on Jefferson Street so that the main entry is south of Building "G"; 5. Angled parking has been added to the overall parking lot design theme; and, 6. Changed the design of Building "B" to include some of the design features noted above plus modified the entryway design on both sides of the building (north and east). CONCLUSION: Staff appreciates any comments the Design Review Board has on the attached plans since the Applicant is under a limited time period in which to be placed on the City Council meeting of January 19, 1993, and we feel the new plan is superior to the other proposed plans. DRBST.074 2 OV RECOMMENDATION: That the Design Review Board should recommend approval of the attached plans with any modifications that the Design Review Board would feel are necessary. Further, the Applicant has requested that Condition #24.u. should be modified so that the final plans are reviewed by Staff and the Building and Safety Department during plan check. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Original Planning Commission Conditions of Approval of November 24, 1992. 3. New plans date stamped December 23, 1992. DRBST.074 3 0Q j 1 Fred Waring Drive 7'T�r ace c r�i 1 I,1 I I 1 ..:n `! glI�r _ Miles Avenue L11i1 —_ Westward Ho Driv( I HiAwaX 111 C1rTT.) roc Avenue 48th u Q to Q %A 4- venue 50th .16 I o j __ _ . • ._.. L 1— I EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS NUMBER 06 TNROUGN LANES ® 4 LANES ® S LANES EE Z LANES P4MSECTI0N CONTROL r, . SIGNALIZED ® STOP SIGN (4 VW) ® MUM STOP SIGN NAM'm III T7= Ell ® s �V • ■ w N L. . 1Mt , RI woeAI` MAC ' ��.�. •a.0 I---� yo•e �•.—N EXHIBIT CASE NO. conditions of Approval �D %-t`yD Specific Plan 92-022 4 Plot Plan 92-490 December 15, 1992 BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN 24. The development shall be governed by the following: A. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened ` )m view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Departmem. B. No two-story buildings shall be allowed within 150-feet of Jefferson Street or Highway 111. C. All roofing material within the project shall be clay or concrete tile barrel. The color of the roof tiles shall consist of desert hues and be approved by the Design Review Board. D. A building addressing plan shall be submitted to Building and Safety and to the Fire Department for review during plan check. The minimum building address size lettering shall be eight inches. E. Screening of the parking lot surface shall be provided from all adjacent streets through use of berming, landscaping and/or short decorative walls. The minimum vertical height shall be 42 inches. F. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per Federal, State, and local requirements. G. No overhead or similar door shall open to the north or towards any residentially zoned property unless adequate screened from noise and visibility to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Director. H. Variety in setbacks and siting shall occur in development of the future pad sites, but in no case shall the building setback line be less than the minimum building setback requirement. 1. No outside cart or other storage shall be permitted unless completely screened in a City approved area, excluding cart return areas within parking lot area. J. Parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of building permits. K. Plot plan or conditional use permit applications, as deemed necessary by C-P-S Zone requirements, shall be processed for each pad site. CONAPRVL.066 05G U�� Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 d Plot Plan 92-490 December 15, 1992 desert landscape, uplighting, and public art as a focal point for this primary intersection. The landscape area should be approximately 50 feet by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). The plan shall be approved by the Design Review Board and by the Arts in Public Places Committee. S. All roof mounted mechanical equipment should be screened by the building wall parapet (e.g., 32-inch parapet). T. The minimum dimension for a parking lot planter should be seven feet wide. *U. The final concept building plans (all sides) shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to submittal of the construction drawings to the Building and Safety Department. The Board shall review all items generally noted above plus include the items discussed by the Design Review Board at their meeting of November 18, 1992. RAD1N 25. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: A. The use of irrigation during all construction activities; B. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 26. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 27. Applicant shall comply with provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of fees required therewith, and the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. CONAPRVL.066 7 05 0p . �4� iJ BI #E STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: JANUARY 6, 1993 CASE NO: LA QUINTA 66-ACRE MASTER PLAN BACKGROUND: The City of La Quinta hired a consultant to prepare a master plan for 66 acres the City owns located northeast of the intersection of 48th Avenue and Jefferson Street. The property has frontage on Dune Palms Road, 48th Avenue, and Jefferson Street and is divided by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The consultant prepared three land use alternatives for consideration. Some of the uses envisioned are: 1) fire station; 2) Coachella Valley Water District well site; 3) the administration offices for Desert Sands Unified School District which includes the audio visual center, kitchen facilities, bus barn and administration buildings; 4) the La Quinta corporate yard; 5) the post office; 6) a commercial area; 7) senior housing; and 8) recreational amenities such as a driving range in the Evacuation Channel. The consultant contacted these various users and based upon their anticipated demands for development, assembled the necessary acreage and configuration that they desire. Three alternative plans are before you for your consideration and recommendation to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Move to recommend a plan or a modified plan to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Alternatives #1, #2, & #3. DRBST.073 1 046 BI #F DATE: PROJECT: APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING JANUARY 6, 1993 APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR CENTER MEDIANS CITY OF LA QUINTA TKD ASSOCIATES WASHINGTON STREET MEDIANS BETWEEN SINGING PALMS DRIVE AND 48TH AVENUE At the request of the City, TDK Associates has prepared preliminary planting plans for the above described medians which presently exist. The plants proposed for use in the center medians are low water users and attractive desert type planting. The design complies with the draft City Landscape Guidelines which are presently being developed. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the submitted plans. Any comments you have will be taken into consideration prior to formal working drawings being prepared. Attachments: 1. Landscaping plans DRBST.075 1 0 47 kN =. JELLS gvaa 40VO&d. b fAAA+iVA AV%6 W\&\ U DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California December 2, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:34 P.M. and Boardmember Rice led the flag salute. U. ROLL CALL ME A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Marrs, and Chairman Harbison. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. A. Community Park North; a request of the City for review of conceptual plans for an 18 acre park site located at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Westward Ho Drive. DRB12-2 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 1 (, q9 Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 Chairwoman Barrows asked that some Palm trees be incorporated into the plan. Chairman Harbison suggested that 70-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 Sheriff's 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 Burns park and the storm 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 Avenida Bermudas between the old and new 52nd Avenue. DRB12-2 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 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. 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 111 and south of the Whitewater Storm Channel in 111 La Quinta Shopping Center. DRB12-2 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 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 150-feet of Highway 111. 4. Mr. Frank Oley, site developer for Carl's Jr., stated the building sits 27- feet from Highway 111. 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 111 and the berm could help to act as a screen for the drive-thru area. 5. Boardmembers, Staff and Mr. Oley discussed Staff's 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 05F Design Review Board Minutes December 2, 1992 DRB12-2 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 111. 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 20-28-feet. 7. Mr. Oley were through the Conditions of Approval. Questions were raised as follows: a. Condition #1: Regarding the masonry wall. They felt the berm would be sufficient. Boardmember Anderson felt the screen wall 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 #11: 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 DRB12-2 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 in the 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 and 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 the fence. 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 red/yellow 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 111 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 92-004, subject to Staff's 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 5 051.3 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. 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, D.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 111 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. 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 5:10 P.M., December 2, 1992. DRB12-2 6 0541 iu 11UTIM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California November 18, 1992 I. CALL T ) ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. and Boardmember Anderson led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Marrs, and Chairman Harbison. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Secretary II Cristal Spidell. III. BUSINESIS SESSION A. Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490; a request of E.F.P. Corporation to establish a development standards for a future shopping center proposed for the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street. A request to develop a 253,400 square foot commercial shopping center on ±20 acres. DRBII-18 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 Curtis asked Staff if the Board should be considering any part of the traffic flow. Staff stated that the Board could make general comments but traffic flow was part of the Planning Commission purview. 3. Mr. Michael Hurst, architect, gave a presentation on the changes that were made to the architectural drawings. 1 Design Review Board Minutes November 18, 1992 4. Boardmember Curtis asked the applicant where the signage would appear on the parapet in relation to the neon lighting. Mr. Hurst gave a description. Discussion followed regarding signing programs. Boardmember Anderson asked the applicant asked if the north elevations were to link up with the south elevations and be a complete facade. Mr. Hurst stated they did and gave a verbal description. Discussion followed regarding the north elevation. 6. Boardmember Campbell inquired where the pedestrian arcade was located. Mr. Hurst again gave a description and described on the plans where the arcade went. Discussion followed regarding the pedestrian walkways. 7. Boardmember Campbell discussed the proposed problem with the amount of parking and the amount of room in the common area to accommodate the food tenants. Discussion followed between the applicant and the Board regarding the parking, and the amount of open space in the building. Mr. Robert Cunnard, resident of La Quinta, asked Boardmember Campbell for his background. Mr. Campbell stated his history in commercial business. Mr. Cunnard stated that he liked the look of the building with the open space in the food court area and the ability to look through the building. Discussion followed regarding the design of the building. 9. Mr. Ed Carnes, project manager for E.F.P. Corporation, stated it was his, and his corporations constitutional right to leave the building half empty if he so chose to. The economics were his business and he wanted a copy of tonights meeting transcripts as well as the previous meeting. 10. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the changes that had been made to the building and he would like to see as little signage as possible. He stated he felt the building looked more like "Moroccan" than Spanish. In addition when coming from the east to the west this is one of main entries to La Quinta and it should look better and especially the signage. 11. Boardmember Anderson asked that the developer continue to present preliminary elevations of the project so they can see how the project will develop as the Board has several problems that need. This is to be resolved to avoid changes to the working drawings. Discussion followed between the architect and the Board regarding the look La Quinta wanted for this corner. Mr. Hurst stated his desire to have the project be more contemporary in style. DRB11-18 2 056 Design Review Board Minutes November 18, 1992 12. Boardmember Curtis stated his approval of the changes that had been made and wanted to keep the applicant on his timeline, but also agreed with Boardmember Anderson that complete elevations be brought back to the Design Review Board for continued review. 13. Boardmember Wright expressed his concern for the entrance on Jefferson Street. Discussion followed with the architect regarding the entrance. 14. Planning Commissioner Marrs expressed his approval of the changes that had been made and encouraged the architect to continue to achieve a "Southwestern" look. 15.. Chairman Harbison expressed his approval of the design and hoped that the applicant would continue to develop the design. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis to recommend approval of the proposal subject to Staff recommendations with the added condition that the south elevation treatment be used on all elevations subject to review by Staff and the Design Review Board prior to preparation of the final drawings. Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion. Boardmember Anderson amended the motion to also require the architect to submit alternate roof tile samples. Boardmembers Curtis and Marrs approved the amendment. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Rice, Curtis, Wright, Campbell, Planning Commissioner Marrs, Chairman Harbison. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: Boardmember Anderson. VL ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Planning Commissioner Marrs to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on December 2, 1992, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 6:50 P.M., November 18, 1992. DRBII-18 3 057 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 7, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. and Boardmember Rice led the flag salute. H. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson (arrived at 5:38), John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Ellson, and Chairman Harbison. B. Boardmember Curtis moved and Planning Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to excuse Boardmember Rice. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Secretary II Cristal Spidell. M. BUSINESS SESSION A. Sign Application 91-159. Amendment N3 - Simon Plaza; a request of Mr. Skip Berg for approval to install a shopping center identification sign, directional signs and multiple building signs for a future office/commercial facility planned on five and one half acres. DRB10-7 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 Curtis asked Staff if this request was for additional signage. Staff stated that may be the case but Staff would prefer the applicant to answer. Mr. Berg stated no. 1 osg Design Review Board Minutes October 7, 1992 DRB10-7 3. Boardmember Wright asked Staff if the sign request exceeded the Sign Ordinance regulations and if so, by how much. Staff stated the program was over but Staff was uncertain at this time by how much. Mr. Skip Berg, representing the applicant stated that the only thing that was out of Code requirements was the freestanding sign in front of the medical building. Boardmember Wright stated he felt there was an excessive amount of signs. Boardmember Wright asked that Mr. Berg go over each sign, its location, and the size. Discussion followed regarding each of the signs. 4. Boardmembers questions the need for a three sided center identification sign. Mr. Berg stated that in order for all traffic coming from the different directions to see the signs it needed to be three sided. Discussion followed regarding the view of the sign from each of the directions and possible alternatives of how the sign could be placed. Boardmember Anderson stated he would rather see a smaller three sided sign rather than a large two sided sign by taking the allowable square footage for two streets and divide into a three sided sign. Boardmember Curtis asked if it was possible to incorporate the "City of La Quinta" sign with the "Simon Plaza" sign. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked if one of the signs could be placed on a berm and elevate one of the signs to give each their own extinction. Boardmembers stated they would prefer a berm for the Simon Plaza sign with a little cut out (retaining wall) for the City of La Quinta sign. Discussion followed regarding the height of the freestanding signs. It was felt the total height for the sign should be 12 feet from the bottom of the retaining wall. 5. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt signs #3, #15, #16, and #17 should be eliminated as they are redundant. Everyone agreed. 6. Mr. Berg brought up signs #5, #6, #7, and #8. Boardmembers had no problems with signs #5 and #6, but felt that sign #7 could not be seen. Following discussion it was decided that signs #7 and #8 would come back for approval after the building is constructed. 7. Signs #9 and #10 were approved as submitted. Sign #11 would be located on the pie -shaped landscaped area south of the building area with an overall height not to exceed 6-feet, Staff approval, and with all letters on all signs being in capital letters. 2 Design Review Board Minutes October 7, 1992 8. Mr. Berg asked that sign #12 be a two-sided sign. Discussion followed as to location and size. Boardmembers felt the sign should be lowered two feet in overall height and not to exceed ten feet in width. Boardmember Anderson felt that sign #11 should be duplicated for sign #12. Boardmembers decided that the height of the arc above the sign should be reduced and be in proportion to the size of the sign. The overall height of the sign would be six feet and would not be two-sided. 9. Mr. Berg asked about signs #14.a., 14.b., and 14.c. Boardmembers felt an externally illuminated sign was appropriate for 14.b., but that 14.a. & 1.4.b. were not necessary. Sign #18 would be an appropriate location to identify the building because it would be a freestanding sign facing the parking lot at the entry of the building. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of Sign Application 91-159, Amendment #3, as recommended by Staff and amended above. Unanimously approved. B. Sign Deviation for 111 La Ouinta Center; a request of Payless Shoesource Shoes for approval of a deviation from the approved sign program for their business sign. DRB10-7 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 Curtis asked to be excused from the meeting at 7:10 P.M. 3. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern about other stores applying for the same request. 4. Boardmember Wright asked if both signs would be the standard Payless Shoesource signs. Ms. Melanee Jech from Federal Signs, gave a description of the signage request. Discussion followed as to the size of each sign, the sign, Code and Staffs proposed recommendation. 5. Boardmembers discussed with Staff what Staff considered to be a two sided building. Boardmembers discussed with the Applicant the visibility of the sign from Washington Street. 3 060 Design Review Board Minutes October 7, 1992 6. Discussion followed relative to the different problems of not having the signage for the Applicant versus the City's standpoint of two signs for a store frontage, the square footage of the store, the height of the letters in the sign, and the color of the building. The members discussed the colors used and approved for the 111 La Quinta Center, and Boardmember Anderson stated he would like to see the minutes of the meeting where the colors were approved. Members felt that if the signs were 18 inches in height the two signs would be acceptable. Staff stated that 24 inch high letters by 75 % of the width of the store front not to exceed 50 square feet is what was approved for the 111 La Quinta Center. 7. Planning Commissioner Ellson suggested that the second sign be a non - lighted sign. Boardmember Anderson felt this would be interpreted as a broken sign. He further stated he felt that due to the amount of frontage on the west elevation, this would be called a store front. Chairman Harbison felt that if this was the case then a precedent should be set that the amount of frontage would determine whether a second sign would be allowed and 18 inches would be the maximum height allowed. 8. Boardmember Anderson moved and Planning Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the Sign Deviation for the Payless Shoesource, subject to conditions as amended that both signs be of equal size not to exceed what was allowed by the 111 La Quints Center sign program. The motion was approved on a 4-1-2 vote with Boardmember Wright voting no and Boardmembers Rice and Curtis being absent. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Harbison asked that the Minutes show that Boardmembers Campbell, Wright and Curtis were excused from the meeting. There being no further corrections to the minutes, Boardmember Wright moved and Boardmember Anderson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of September 2, 1992, as corrected. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER Boardmembers requested that joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission after the Council elections might be beneficial to discuss the long range goals of the City in regard to design and signage. They stated their appreciation of receiving City Council agendas. DRB10-7 4 0F1 s Design Review Board Minutes October 7, 1992 VI. It was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Wright to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on November 4, 1992, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 8:40 P.M., October 7, 1992. DRB10-7 5