Loading...
1993 08 04 DRB1982 - 1 I. II. III umm Ten Carat Decade 9 rA -,WWII,, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD A Special Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico Session Room La Quinta, California August 4, 1993 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL BUSINESS SESSION A. PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of architectural plans for the La Quinta Sculpture Park -Phase I located 57-325 Madison Street, north of Avenue 58. B. PLOT PLAN 93-502 AND CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066; a request of Jascorp for approval to develop a 124 unit one and two story apartment complex on the west side of Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel/Washington Street bridge and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico. along with a change of zone from R-1, R-2, and C-P to R-2. C. PLOT PLAN 93-505; a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans for single family residences. located on the north side of Miles Avenue, east of Adams Street. D. SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of architectural elevations for residential units located on the east side of Washington Street south of Avenue 48 within "The Orchard" project. 1..4 u - 0 01 E. SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage south of Avenue 48 within "The Orchard" project. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None Approval of the Minutes for the regular meeting of the Design Review Board on June 2, 1993, the special meeting of June 23, 1993, and the regular meeting of July 7, 1993. V. OTHER VL ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION August 2, 1993, Monday 4:00 P.M. La Quinta City Hall Session Room " 002 DATE: CASE NO PROJECT: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: ARCHITECT: LOCATION: ZONING: PROPOSAL: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 4, 1993 PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-016 APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THE LA QUINTA SCULPTURE PARK - PHASE I BERNARDO GOUTHIER STAN POLLAKUSKY 57-325 MADISON, NORTH OF AVENUE 58 R-1-10,000 The applicant is proposing to develop a private school specializing in sculpture, a sculpture garden, gallery, and offices on a 20 acre parcel. The property has an existing house, lake, entry gate, and some landscaping. A site plan has been submitted depicting two phases to the overall project. Only architectural plans for Phase I have been submitted at this time. Phase I consists of the Art School building which is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase I of this building is the classroom, while Phase II will be the shop, caretakers unit, and storage areas. The Art School building is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the parcel and will also include a caretakers apartment upstairs. The building is two story with the school occupying 3,722 square feet and the caretakers unit occupying 1130 square feet. Covered patios take up 1,493 square feet and the carport -receiving area is 400 square feet. The Art School building is a two story structure of modern design. A tower element is featured on the observation deck, located above the caretakers unit. Brushed aluminum siding is proposed around the second floor exterior along with steel columns for structural support. Glass blocks will be used on the front elevation to allow light to enter and as an additional design feature. The remaining portions of the building will have a stucco exterior finish. The roof is flat on this building and will have a low parapet to hide mechanical equipment. DRBST.100 003 The applicant has submitted two color schemes. Scheme "A" features up mice, blue grey, and infrared. Scheme "B" features gray wool, silver grey, plum rich, and canyon. Both schemes feature the brushed aluminum siding on the second floor exterior. Color and material boards have been submitted for review. ANALYSIS: Staff is suggesting that the brushed aluminum be covered with a patina, paint, or substituted with another material due to the intense glare when direct sun shines on the aluminum. The architect has agreed to provide a sample of a patina to solve this problem. The height of the tower is 40 feet which staff feels is allowable under 9.156.120 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows height exceptions for structures such as chimneys, flagpoles, wireless masts, and similar structures that exceed the prescribed height limits where such structures do not provide additional floor space. The height limit for the R-1 zone is now two stories, not to exceed 28 feet. Landscaping around the Art School building is not depicted. The applicant has expressed a desire to bring the landscaping plans before the Board at a later date. Staff is supporting color Scheme "B" as the infrared in Scheme "A" may be too bold. Scheme "A" is thought to be similar to desert colors that have been used in the vicinity. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: Attachment #2 contains recommended Conditions of Approval for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Review plans in conjunction with Staff comments and determine acceptability. The Design Review Board recommendation(s) will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Recommended conditions 3. Project plans DRBST.100 Attachment 5 nw •\n 0r.r.. • .nw O��'. I s... ''n'•. I ru .... .. i rwl oro- sf ra oel..o. . rr ... • i:::rr .l..l n.•• rn.a.o V oj&4 Iv .lflW •.p46, I llllr ♦65A, • r•.• i N.I�•,V MI ;,O it � •+!� +� .101r l4 G. � s•r•IrV." LOCATION MAP Lij ols-q! O r�o C 1 NORT SCALE: NTS wl Attachment 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. All building and structures within this permit shall not exceed 28 feet in overall height, except as allowed in Section 9.156.120 Height Exceptions in the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance. 2. No signs are approved pursuant to this public use permit. Prior to the installation of any on -site advertising or directional device, a signing plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning and Development Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the permittee shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans for approval to the Planning and Development Department. 4. Color Scheme "B" shall be used on the exterior of the Art School building. DRBST.100 006 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: AUGUST 4, 1993 PROJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066 & PLOT PLAN 93-502; LA QUINTA VILLAGE APPLICANT/ OWNER: JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT) ARCHITECT: STOFFREGEN/FULLER DESIGNER: DE COSTER & ASSOCIATES; MR. JOE DE COSTER ALTA ENGINEER: KEITH COMPANIES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HORTON SHEPARDSON & ASSOCIATES OWNER: AMCOR CAPITAL, INC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT) REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR +12 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R-2 *5,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS), AND C-P (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS). PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 124 UNIT ONE AND TWO STORY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME APARTMENT COMPLEX ON +12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO. BONUS DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 25% DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. A 10% BONUS IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED PER THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN POLICIES BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER BELIEVES HIS PROJECT HAS INCORPORATED DESIRABLE DESIGN AMENITIES INTO THE PROJECT. EXISTING ZONING: ,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILYNE IPLEFAMILYDa DWELLINGS) & C-P(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: R-3/R-2 5,000 MULTI-FAMILY/R1 SINGLE FAMILY; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (TENNIS RESORT) SOUTH: C-P GENERAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT (FUTURE RALPH'S SHOPPING CENTER) EAST: SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL; SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; VACANT 007 DRB7/20.F1/CS -1 DESCRIPTION OF SITE: THE PROPOSED +12 ACRE SITE IS THE NORTHERLY 2/3 OF A PORTION OF 2 TAX LOTS (17.6 ACRES). THE PARCELS ARE FLAT AND UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY HAS +680 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG WASHINGTON STREET AND IS 740 FEET IN DEPTH. THE SITE ELEVATION ALONG WASHINGTON STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL AND APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO ON -SITE PARKING: PROVIDED: 124 COVERED+127 UNCOVERED = 251 REQUIRED: 2.5 SPACES X 124 UNITS = 310 i9Yi)93 1.401Vmer.TNYeiaelft"I In 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed a low and moderate income senior citizen apartment complex for this site (Plot Plan 91-467). The Applicant proposed 109 units on approximately 9 acres. The developer proposed approximately 550 square feet to 1,150 square feet one story units. The developer requested Redevelopment Agency assistance, but an agreement could not be secured. On November 19, 1991, the City Council tabled the case from further review and consideration at the applicant's request. No action has occurred on this case since 1991. BACKGROUND: The site is improved with street improvements along Washington Street but the site does not have permanent curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements at this time. The existing off -site improvements along the frontage of the site were installed by the City in 1992. The site will be allowed left -turn access onto Washington Street from the southerly side of the site pursuant to the past review/approval of the Ralph's Shopping Center project. This common driveway will be signalized. Site Design The design concept uses a clustering of one and two story (duplex style) residential units around a 32 foot wide private street. The front yards will be common and the back yards will be for private recreation. A community building has been proposed near the main gated entry. Marketing Concept The units are planned for low and moderate income families but the preliminary rental rates are not available as of the writing of this report. =+.. 008 DRB7/20.F1/CS -2- Project Density The net area of the site is estimated to be approximately 11.68. Based on this figure, the maximum number of allowable dwelling units would be approximately 93 units (i.e. 8 units/acre) if the change of zone application is allowed. This amount can be exceeded if the developer provides affordable units within the development. A 25% bonus can be granted per Section 65915 of the State Code (23 units). However, additional units (10%) could be added to the project if various standards are met as noted in Policy 2-1.1.3 of the General Plan. The Planning Commission shall evaluate whether or not any additional units should be allowed. Circulation/Parking As mentioned above, the site has one point of access onto Washington Street which is a divided major arterial (120-foot right-of-way). The entry into the site is located at the southeast corner of the property. The entry is to be signalized and shared with the future Ralph's Shopping Center to the south. The project will be a gated community. Each unit will have a car garage and additional uncovered parking in front of the garage. Secondary Access The Riverside County Fire Marshal has requested that the project have two points of access into the site. Since the project has one, a second access should be provided. The easiest way to accommodate the Fire Department's request is to provide an emergency access gate at the southwest corner of the apartment complex at the terminus of the cul-de-sac bulb. The access point can be for either emergency purposes or for on -site resident usage. In either scenario, the number of parking spaces on the Ralph's site will be reduced by 2 or 3 spaces. The design solution should be reviewed by Staff and the Riverside County Fire Marshal either prior or during plan check. Landscaping/Screening The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately 20 feet, and a meandering sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. This sidewalk should be eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. Landscape planters are interspersed throughout the site and a six foot wall will be installed along Washington Street for security purposes. Building Heights one story buildings (approximately 18 1/2 feet high) have been proposed along Washington Street because of the "low density" height policy in the City's General Plan. The City's policy has been to require one story units within 150-feet of a major thoroughfare for aesthetic purposes. The Applicant's plan meets this requirement. A two story design has been used for a majority of the units independent of the one story units along Washington Street. The two story units are approximately 24-feet in overall height._ The R-2 Zone code standards permit 28-feet. 009 DRB7/20.F1/CS -3- Architectural Design The proposed single and two story Mediterranean design is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, and consistent with the design standards of a low density condominium project, etc.). The duplex units include a variation in architectural elements and color schemes. The project architect has proposed four architectural styles for the two story plan and two for the one story plan. The plans vary the roof design style by using a combination of hip roofs and gable roofs. Additional embellishments include changes in textures, window treatments, wing walls, column supports and other slight architectural changes. The seven color schemes use a collection of light desert color tones to accent each building type. However, the concrete roofing material will be the same for each building (Espanz Mission #108). A one story clubhouse for the residents is also proposed. The design is consistent with the overall design theme for the project. The Developer has proposed units which range in size from 1,109 to 1,141 square feet which is larger than the minimum size allowed of 750 square feet. This size unit is consistent with the normal size of a standard smaller single family home or townhouse project. All units are two bedroom dwellings, therefore, staff believes the project will be geared for small families and possibly senior citizens. STAFF COMMENTS: The following conditions are recommended by Staff: 1. The landscape program for Washington Street includes a variation of planting materials, such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. Unlighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during plan check. 2. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street along the frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall meander into the right-of-way but not touch the curb. 3. A common area parking lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Department prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed with analysis the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210. The height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height. DRB7/20.F1/CS -4 010 4. The screen wall along Washington Street shall be six feet high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall shall be constructed to match the recently installed privacy screen wall on the east side of the street which was installed by the City in 1992. The wall should be stepped or terraced to create an architectural element on Washington Street which is consistent with the City's Image Corridor design guidelines. 5. Both passive and active outdoor equipment should be examined and the on -site recreational facilities should be approved by the Design Review Board during final plan review. 6. All dwelling units along Washington Street should be a minimum of 30 feet from the property line. The measurement should be to the edge of any building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs. 7. The comments of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (June 24, 1993) and the Riverside County Fire Department (June 28, 1993) should be incorporated into the final design of the project. 8. The final construction plans should be reviewed by the Planning Department during Building Department review. 9. Landscaping for each duplex unit should comply with the following: a) The front, side & rear yards of each duplex unit should be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, which ever is furthest from the residence. b) The landscaping should include trees (minimum four 15-gallon trees per duplex and three extra trees on the exterior sides of the corner units), shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing, and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual of Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. c) A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. d) The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 10. The perimeter security fencing for the project (excluding Washington Street Street) shall include a combination of masonry columns at ten foot intervals with cedar fencing. The fence shall be six feet high. However, along the south side of the property, a masonry fence shall be installed because the abutting parcel is commercially zoned. 11. Each unit shall have a minimum of 2.5 parking spaces per Chapter 9.160.045(C) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Tandem parking in front of the garage will not be counted based on the existing provisions of the Municipal Zoning Code. 011 DRB7/20.F1/CS -5- 14. The entry drive and gate shall be designed with adequate stacking room to ensure that traffic from this development does not impede the flow of traffic into and out of the development to the south. The entry gate design shall include a turn -around between the card reader and the gate. The final design shall require the Fire Marshal, Engineering Department, and Planning and Development Department approval. CONCLUSION: The project has been designed to encourage tenant interaction, but it also provides apartment units which are designed like single family homes. Passive recreation has also been encouraged. RECOMMENDATION: That the Design Review Board move to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission based on the recommendation of Staff and any other comments of the Design Review Board. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Large Plan 3. Reductions 4. Letter from Applicant 5. Agency Comments DRB7/20.F1/CS -6- �1 T, PAR. S °® !0d AC.N7 30" AC16R. •,\w�f S 112 NW. SEC. 6 T. 6S., R.7E. MIS AMP a FOR \\ j .1SSlSSAffMT pURAWS 014 / INorth Existing Vacant Property Future Shopping Center OVacant Parcel l.t : �. JJ„r -CArl 5 —yo PROPERTY IN QUESTION NrO,s New City Hall Site 09 P.M. /22189 - 90 pwce/ Mbp 19730 PM 17511-2 r r 271AC 45�45Z.WJ MAP SK. 769 PS. R1WRS/0E--00VNrY, CAI M a z r E m .5 r I . V X I W ra � 05 n13 LLJ i _ i �f6€� Qinn } is --ago ..'ama bow'VA V~� J� ® I a �corp� Building the Future July 8, 1993 La Quinta Planning Dept. P.O. Box 1504 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Gary Trousdell Dear Mr. Trousdell, IIjL ;1 JUL 08 1993 Thank you for responding to our submittal and application for our affordable housing community located on the N/W corner of the intersection of Washington and Tampico (just north of the proposed Ralphs Shopping Center. The community is envisioned to include 124 homes within a gated and carefully landscaped environment that will also share a recreation center for small get togethers with adjoining pool & perhaps bar-b-que area. The community is intended to provide affordable housing without compromise to the pride of ownership quality expected of the young professional or the mature move down buyers we encounter today. The homes are designed by the architectural firm of Stoffregen/Fuller a licensed architect with offices located both in Palm Desert and the Orange County area. The smart design has allowed for a popular duplex configuration of single story units as well as side by side two story units (vs. Jones below/Smith above). All homes include a generous single car garage with a driveway that will accommodate 2 more cars to insure off street parking. Common areas are yards fenced on front courtyard intended to be kept property lines along and side yard areas. to a minimum with rear with a variation of 79-811 County% Club Drive #A Bermuda Duno California 92201 619-345-8090 I 1,11)- 4 -v753 �15 We are sensitive to the standard R-2 zoning which allows for a density of 8 units per acre. The affordable aspect of the project as I understand allows a 25% density bonus (or 2 units per acre) this brings us to 10 units per acre. The design may bring an additional 10% bonus (or 1 unit per acre) bringing the total density to 11 units per acre. As we have 11.68 net acres, this could equate to 128 units. We propose 124 units. The financing for this project anticipates state and federal tax exempt bond status as the developer looks to the city of La Quinta to provide a letter of inducement resolution to be issued for procurement of bonds. The bonds are guaranteed through a letter of credit placed by our local financial institution guaranteed by the developer. We trust this will provide you our La Quinta Village project. questions please don't hesitate Regards, Bob Wright Partner cc: Dennis Moran with a better understanding of Should you have any further to give us a call. Joseph Swain Partner t7' RIVERSIDE COUNTY ouxrr RIVERSIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT I. M. HARRIS FIRE CHIEF To: City of La Ouinta Planning Division Attn: Greg Trousdell Re: Plot Plan 93-502 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657-3183 June 28, 1993 J U N 2 0 1993 a a { Please be advised that the following corrections are required. 1. Provide secondary or emergency access. 2. Provide adequate turning radius at the street adjacent to the entrace gate. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at (619) 863-BB86. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner BY /C,-- Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION !) 0 RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION VJ INDIOOFFICE lei / 3760 121h Street, Riverside, CA 92501 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (909) 275-4777 . FAX (909) 369-7451 (619) 863-8886 • FAX (619) 863-7072 ,—,dnnern. paper RIVERSIDE COUNTY CO1S BYRD, SHERIFF 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-8990 City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta CA 92253 Attention: Greg Trousdell Associate Planner RE: PP 93-5021JASCORP Dear Mr. Trousdell: We have the following comments concerning the above project. Regarding Police Staffing: Increase in population result in an increase of called for services. The projected population increase will also impact traffic conditions by increasing daily round trips in the area. Regarding Project Design: We recommend that address numbers be mounted on contrasting background. 77te numbers should be of sufficient size to be legible from the roadway and should be situated near the roofline on the corner of the residence. This will reduce the response time of emergency vehicles to the residence. Streets, security walls and parking areas should be well lighted to provide a safer environment for the residents and to dissuade would-be criminals from targeting the area for illegal activities. High pressure sodium lights are recommended as they provide the greatest amount of light per kilowatt and are the least expensive to operate. All residential doors should have an industrial quality key and latch system. Deadbolt locks are suggested for all exterior doors. The locks should be installed using three inch set screws to provide maximum benefit. All exterior doors, without windows, should have a peephole installed in order to allow good visibility of the outside area without having to open the door. Windows should not be placed close enough to the doors, which would allow a person to break the glass and unlock the door by hand. Qrs Page 2 EIR #93-502 June 24, 1993 Shrubbery and bushes should be trimmed low to the ground to eliminate hiding places for criminals and allow better visibility from the street for patrolmen. Windows should never be concealed by vegetation. The crime prevention measures outlined in this letter are merely suggestions and are not required as a prerequisite for plan approval. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project from a law enforcement point of view. Sincerely, COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dye, Captain Indio Station Commander 619 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 4, 1993 PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE 2; APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-505 (MODEL HOMES) APPLICANT: FORECAST HOMES REPRESENTATIVE: TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET BACKGROUND: The tract is a 116 lot subdivision approved by the City in 1988. The subdivision was recorded in 1990. The original Applicant, Waldon Financial, had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size for 1,670 to 2,570 square feet. In 1990, Windsor Construction Company purchased the project. The existing 18 homes within Phase 1 were developed by Windsor Construction Company in 1990 & 1991. The homes built by Windsor Construction Company were one and two story units. Three floor plans were used varying in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet excluding garages. A Mediterranean architectural style was used and the exterior materials consist of stucco, wood trim, tile accents, and multi -colored roof tile. Colors are earth tones with Southwest accent colors, and a brown/beige roof tile. Three elevations were available for each plan. The homes sold for +$200,000. The Planning Commission approved the house plans on December 11, 1990. NEW PROPOSAL: The Applicant is in the process of purchasing the remaining lots within Phase 2 to develop single or two story homes on the existing +8,000 square foot lots. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 23913 require that the Applicant submit to Design Review Board and Planning Commission architectural plans of any type of unit design to be built within the tract. Based on this requirement, the Applicant has submitted their model plans which includes three sizes of homes from 1,106 square feet to 1,659 square feet (3 & 4 bedroom units). Each unit has an attached two car garage. Plans 2 thru 6 include three elevation types per size of home. Plan 6 is the only two story plan. The applicant is not sure where their model complex will be built at this time. They expect it to be on Ocotillo Drive and Adams Street. 0,? The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1. The front facades vary from stucco, to brick and/or stone veneer. The masonite lapsiding (i.e., Elevation "C") will not be used in this project because it cannot withstand the harsh desert climate. The units include covered entry patios, varied roof designs and embellishments, and other architectural characteristics. The homes are 17+ to 24+ feet in overall height. The exterior building colors will be similar to Phase 1. The colorboard will be available at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed units are smaller in size than those built in Phase 1. The Applicant has stated that their market research has shown that smaller, more affordable units are selling whereas the larger homes are not as marketable in today's economic climate. The R-1 Zoning Code does not define the size of home which can be built similar to the SR Zoned areas which prescribe minimum 1,200 square foot homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract Conditions and CC&R provisions to make sure the proposed homes can be built, as proposed. The Applicant's proposal meets these minimum standards, but to ensure that the original owners retain their property values, staff would like to require the applicant to meet a minimum house size requirement of 1,200 square feet. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. However, the eave overhangs are generally minimal except for the entry door locations. The side and rear elevations are plain and should have some additional architectural treatment similar to the front elevations (e.g. stucco pop -outs around the windows). The proposed architectural features will complement the overall building design and supplement the State's Title 24 Energy Efficiency requirements. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 15-gallon trees on interior lots and five 15-gallon trees on corner lots), minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance 4220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. The standards of the R-1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) . 6. A minimum four -inch stucco pop -out shall be used around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun. The minimum roof eave should be 18-inches or the windows should be recessed into the building facade. 7. If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages, etc. ) as part of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file with staff a floor plan or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home(s) is reconverted prior to its sale and/or occupancy. 8. A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning & Development Department for approval. Units shall be plotted so that the largest units are adjacent to the existing Quinterra homes. The minimum home size for the tract should be 1,200 square feet. 9. If a temporary Real Estate tract office is located within the subdivision the maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and/or two years. A plot plan application is required. 10. The existing concrete roof tile in Phase 1 should be used in the development of Phase II (i.e. Pioneer Custom Hacienda, Class "A"). 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. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan of Tract 3. Architectural plans 05019 � LL § - §2b § E � P� k \ = ! z § oz w -§- o LU § Wiz§ (.5 k A $ § | omqk=Zommmw� j � A »�3 ... .. . .. 0 N P c J - x � IVA N J CL O W n N Y e W 1 P JNI".ib i X .0 _ � a s• �^n' '•LOS MANOS DRIVE= �5 - �.... _ • Imo: 0 3� o -'<`-���� '_ h�� o� II � - x� � 1pO �< :•o; C, -'ri L �I . I' 1 J� n 3 ii,bL;. i I ray dE � � � o � ' � �_ � :. ©? � �� �,•�i ���_� '� 133?Jis SWVOV , is i P ® ® 024 DATE: CASE NO APPLICANT: OWNER: APPLICANT/ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING AUGUST 4, 1993 SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (THE ORCHARD) TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT ROBERT LAMB HART APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR WASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE. EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE. i The subject project which was previously known as "The Pyramids" was granted specific plan approval in November, 1984. Previously in June, under the new developers, an entry design for Washington Street and general architectural guidelines was reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. The entry design only included landscaping for an area of approximately 100 feet beyond the entry area. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for the balance of the Washington Street frontage. The plan which has been submitted includes the previously approved entry design as well as the new landscaping plan. LANDSCAPE DESIGN: The Washington Street landscaping is an extension of the Washington Street entry landscape plan which you recently approved. The plan indicates that a vine and shrub covered security fence six feet in height, would be placed 70 feet behind the right-of-way line which would be approximately 82 feet behind the curb. Along the front of this security fence will be three rows of citrus trees, 30 feet on center and off -set to provide dense screening. A meandering sidewalk eight feet in width will be provided varying from eight feet to 15 feet behind the curb. Ground cover beneath two rows of the citrus trees will be a drought tolerant ground cover (Aptenia). DRBST.099 The closest row of citrus trees to Washington Street will be provided in a tree well surrounded by lawn. Between the sidewalk and curb, drought tolerant ground cover and small shrubs will be provided. Palm trees are only proposed to be utilized within the Washington Street entry area as stipulated in the previously approved landscaping plans. At the corner of 48th Avenue and Washington Street, the applicant proposes an entry sign on a raised planter wall. The project entry sign at the corner of 48th Avenue and Washington Street, was approved in concept as part of the landscape guidelines approved in 1989, for this project. The applicant indicates that the letters would be raised metal letters. However no details on size, color, or exact material is given. Landscape planting in this area will consist of citrus trees behind the wall with smaller palm trees and bougainvillea planted in the raised planter. In front of the raised planter, the applicant proposes annuals and dwarf natal plum. Within this corner area, the applicant is proposing to utilize lawn between the sidewalk and curb. Due to the grading of the golf course, the citrus trees and aptenia will be planted on a slope. This slope area will continue around behind the project entry sign. ANALYSIS: Overall, the landscaping plan complies with the guidelines which were adopted for this project in 1989. There are some items of concern which staff feels should be noted. Those are as follows: 1. One of the conditions of the 1989 guidelines indicated that the landscape connection between this project and adjacent projects should be carefully reviewed for compatibility. In this case, the south end of the landscaping adjacent to Washington Street abuts Parc La Quinta. Overall, the landscaping appears to be compatible. However, staff does feel that adjacent landscaping and wall within 100 feet of the southern boundary, adjacent to Parc La Quinta, should be indicated on a plan and reviewed by the Planning and Development Department for compatibility. 2. The landscaping guidelines approved in 1989, stipulated that Oleanders be used on a limited basis. This plan indicates some use of Oleanders along the frontage. The determination of what is limited use of Oleanders is subject to review. 3. One of the stipulations of the landscape guidelines was that where possible open fencing be utilized to allow views into the golf course areas. Due to the heavy planting of citrus trees, it would be impractical in this location. However, due to the grading of the golf course there will possibly be areas where the golf course will be visible over the trees. 4. While the sidewalk does meander, staff would like to see some additional meandering. Presently the plans indicate that the sidewalk will meander from 8 feet back of curb to 15 feet. Staff feels that it would be preferable to have the sidewalk vary from 8 feet to 20 feet. The applicant will need to grant an easement for the sidewalk to encroach onto his property. DRBST.099 026 S. The sign at the corner of 48th Avenue and Washington Street is conceptually acceptable. Staff feels that details on the sign should be submitted to staff for approval. In conclusion, staff feels that overall the landscaping plans submitted is acceptable. The concept presented is simple but will be attractive due to its consistency. The use of the citrus trees does help reinforce the agricultural heritage of the community. The use of the date palms at the entry will also reinforce the agricultural heritage and provide a focal point for the project entry. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to completion of final working drawings, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Planning and Development department a detail of the landscaping adjacent to Parc La Quinta showing the existing landscaping and existing wall within 100 feet of the southwest corner of the property as measured at the curb. That the meandering sidewalk along Washington Street shall meander between eight feet to 20 feet behind the curb. The project entry sign at the corner of Washington Street and 48th Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. It should be noted that landscape lighting of the signs specifically is not permitted by Code. However, landscaping lighting of the adjacent shrubbery is acceptable. 4. The new meandering sidewalk shall installed to meet the existing Parc La Quinta sidewalk. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Landscape plan (reduced copy) DRBST.099 +, 2; STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 1993 APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT) CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN "THE ORCHARD". BACKGROUND: General The subject project which was previously known as "The Pyramids", was granted specific plan approval in November, 1984. Previously in June, 1993, under the new developers an entry design for Washington Street and general architectural guidelines was reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted for five different residential structures. Those structures are as follows: 1. A caritas duplex with units containing 1400 square feet and 1600 square feet. 2. A hacienda with garden bedroom containing 1800 square feet. 3. A hacienda containing 2,000 square feet. 4. An enstancia containing 2,750 square feet. 5. An enstancia with garden bedroom containing 3,000 square feet. Except for the duplex unit, each unit will have a detached two car with golf cart garage. The duplex will have a two car garage for each unit. The garden bedrooms for the 3,000 and 1,800 square foot units will also be detached and located between the main house and garage unit. Architectural Design The architectural style of these units are early California/Spanish and are designed in a manner similar to the entry guardhouse which you recently reviewed in June. All of these units are one story with maximum height of 18± feet. All units have chimneys which will be slightly higher. Except for the duplex unit, the units will have enclosed front yard patios. DRBST. 101 1 '�N The exterior materials will consist of stucco walls, painted metal gates, raised panel wood roll -up garage doors, painted wood windows and doors with clear glass and applied grills, two piece clay roof tiles (color blend of five colors), exposed wood framing and trellis work, and exposed rafter ends. The units have been designed with minimum three foot overhangs. Around the glass areas wood trim is indicated on the plans. Due to the fact that the views are to the rear, the majority of the glass areas are on the rear elevations of the units. The stucco walls which enclose the patio areas are proposed to be stucco to match the units. Landscaping The submitted plans show vary conceptual landscaping. The applicant intends to submit further detailed landscaping plans for approval at a later date. ANALYSIS: The submitted plans indicate an architectural style which is compatible with that presented by the applicant in June. The units are early California/Spanish and have been provided with adequate eave overhangs and except for the duplex units, patio trellis' along the rear elevations where there is more glass area. The unit siting on the lot is shown on the submitted plans. However they are proposed to be modified to comply with applicable building code requirements. The unit siting will be reviewed in conjunction with processing of Tentative Tract Map 27840 which the applicant recently submitted. This tentative tract map is for the first phase of 126 single family lots. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All exterior lighting shall be in conformance with the adopted Dark Sky Ordinance. 2. Preliminary landscaping plans for the residential unit area shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to installation. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the production units, a unit siting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 4. The applicant shall have the right to provide some front -loading garages if deemed necessary due to the layout of the unit on specific lots. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Architectural plans DRBST.101 2 031 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 June 2, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:36 P.M. and Boardmember Rice led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, Fred Rice, John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Barrows, and Chairman Harbison. Boardmember Anderson arrived at 5:45 P.M. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Secretary II Cristal Spidell. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Plot Plan 93-500; a request of Landrex for approval of off -water architectural plans for Phase I of the Avante collection in Tract 26152, Lake La Quinta for models and single family homes. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Anderson suggested that additional shading be accomplished by increasing the eaves rather than using popouts. Other than that he felt the project would go well in the desert. 3. Boardmember Campbell asked for clarification on "A-1, A-2, A-3". Mr. Bob Ritchey, architect for the project explained that there were four different elevation plans. 4. Boardmember Curtis asked why on A-1 and some of the others the chimney was so high. Mr. Ritchey stated it was intended to be reduced. DRB6-2 i 032 Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 5. Boardmember Randall stated his concern for energy conservation and questioned the glazing on the homes. Mr. Ritchey asked if the City had any requirements other than Title 24. Boardmember Randall stated not at this time. Chairman Harbison stated that the City did not have any requirements but the general desire of the Board was to go beyond Title 24. Mr. Ritchey stated the details they implemented into their plans to meet their energy conservation measures. 6. Boardmember Anderson asked about the eaves. Mr. Ritchey stated that they taking a hip roof and cutting it off to create a hybrid hip and gable to lower the end view so no two houses are together with high roofs to allow more light in. Discussion followed regarding the roof and overhangs. 7. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant took into consideration the direction of the house regarding the Title 24 calculations regarding the air conditioning. Mr. Ritchey stated that when they do the calculations for air conditioning they chose the house with the worst scenario and do the calcs on that house. 8. Boardmember Curtis asked if the applicant had any objections to the staff recommendations. Mr. Ritchey stated he had not seen them as of yet. Mr. Ritchey was allowed to review them and concurred. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson/Curtis to approve Plot Plan 93-500 subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. Unanimously approved. B. Plot Plan 93-499; a request of Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation for approval of Phase 2 architectural plans for single family residences within Tentative Tract 23923 (Quinterra). 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry informed the Board that the applicant had withdrawn its application. C. Sign Application 93-197 Amendment N2; a request of Mr. Skip Berg, DGI Graphics for JFK Memorial Hospital to deviate from the master sign program for the new JFK sign program at Plaza Tampico. DRB6-2 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2 Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 2. Boardmember Curtis asked for clarification on the height of the sign. 3. Boardmember Anderson asked if the sign was to be externally illuminated. Mr. Skip Berg, representing the applicant, explained how the sign would be illuminated. Boardmember Anderson stated he would rather see bullet lighting in the landscaping that would be a better quality illumination than fluorescent lighting. Mr. Berg stated he had no objection if there was enough room. Discussion followed regarding the lighting. 4. Chairman Harbison asked what portion of the constructed building JFK Hospital would have. Mr. Berg stated it would be one of the larger tenants. Boardmember Curtis stated that although it was necessary to keep the identity it was also necessary to have a smaller sign. Mr. Berg Stated that he had a concern with the height as he was trying to be seen over a four foot wall. Discussion followed regarding different alternatives. 5. Mr. Skip Berg asked if it was possible to move the sign closer to the street and therefore lower the sign. Boardmember Wright asked how far the applicant would want to move it. Boardmember Anderson stated his only concern was that the sign not block the vehicular visibility. 6. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the sign objectionable at whatever height and should be redesigned. 7. Boardmember Anderson stated that if the base was shortened to 18-inches and covered by landscaping it would be better. He further asked if this would ever be a monument sign. Mr. Berg stated no it would not. Discussion followed regarding additional signs for the tenants. 8. Chairman Harbison stated he would favor lowering the sign so no additional signs would fit and setting this as a tone for what the signs will have to be for the remainder of the complex. Discussion followed regarding the other signs on the complex. 9. Boardmember Anderson suggested that a wire fixture with a large brim like the old porcelain lights that would set a character style for the Village. 10. Chairman Harbison asked Staff if there were any objections to moving the sign closer to the street. Staff stated the requirement was five feet from the property line. Discussion followed as to where the property line was located. DRB6-2 3 �3� Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 11. Boardmember Wright questioned the location of the complex address numbers. He asked if it was possible to put the address on the sign. Mr. Berg stated his only problem was the location of the four foot wall blocking the view. Discussion followed. 12. Chairman Harbison stated the items that needed to be addressed before the project went to the Planning Commission. a. Putting the street address on the sign. b. Lowering the sign below 12-feet, possibly 8-feet. 13. Boardmember Anderson reiterated that if the sign was of a better design, there probably would not be any objection to the size or location. 14. Mr. Berg asked staff if there was any possibility of allowing the sign to go to the property line. Staff stated it was a matter of filing a variance to the setback requirement. 15. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Anderson/Rice moved to approve the JFK sign that would be attached to the building as submitted and subject to staff conditions. Unanimously approved. 16. Boardmembers Anderson/Curtis moved that the monument sign be redesigned and resubmitted. Unanimously approved. D. Plot Plan 93-498; a request of Stonington Properties for approval to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot retail paid building located approximately 700 feet east of Washington Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Center. DRB6-2 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 Rice asked staff if there was to be any majors located in the building and would there be a problem with who would want sign identification on the tower. Staff stated that when the major tenant was determined they would be paying to have the tower sign identification. 3. Chairman Harbison expressed his concern that there would be a request for two signs. Staff stated this was a corner and they would be allowed the second sign. 4 63,5 Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 DRB6-2 4. Boardmember Campbell asked if there was a criteria for screening the transformer. Staff stated that this was the responsibility of the master developer and as the transformer was not yet installed, staff would see that the transformer would be landscaped. Discussion followed. 5. Boardmember Anderson asked if the tower was glazed or wall surface. Staff stated that it was a trellis against a plaster wall. 6. Boardmember Wright asked if the south wall could have additional design treatment with a little depth to break up the long, flat wall. 7. Mr. Gene Scarcello, applicant, addressed the Board. Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant could alleviate the south elevation. Mr. Scarcello stated there was a berm between the wall and Highway 111 presently to break up the wall. 8. Boardmembers discussed the layout of the building with the applicant. 9. Mr. Chuck Marvick, architect, stated that you would not see any two sides of the tower from any one point. On the south side where the trellis elements are used to disguise the rear entrance doors there was a potential to give this side of the building additional treatment. He suggested raising the trellis beams and let the facia rest on the trellis instead of changing the roof line. Discussion followed. 10. Chairman Harbison suggested that the building be moved so not to encroach into the easement area. Mr. Scarcelo stated they had no objection but asked for some general instruction as to how much. Boardmembers stated approximately three feet would be adequate to provide a three foot setback between the existing sidewalk and trellis. 11. Boardmember Campbell suggested expanding the elements horizontally and vertically so the wall does not dominate so much. 12. Commissioner Adolph asked if the tower was enclosed or not. The applicant stated it was enclosed and went on to explain the construction of the tower. Commissioner Adolph stated he would like to see more consistency in the buildings along Highway 111. He further stated there needed to be consistency in the towers. Discussion followed. 13. There being no further questions, Commissioners Curtis/Rice moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-498 subject to staff conditions with the following additions: 9 036 Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 a. Minimum three foot clearance between the back of the trellis and sidewalk on the south elevation. b. Increase the size of the trellis and treatment on the south elevation. Unanimously approved. E. Plot Plan 93-497; a request of Morite of California (Red Robin Restaurant) for approval to construct a 7,280 square foot restaurant with outdoor seating within the One Eleven La Quinta Center. DRB6-2 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 suggested that if there was a problem with the sign in regards to the trellis, they should eliminate the sign and have that make up for their requirement at the entry. The entry sign could be their west facing sign. 3. Boardmember Wright suggested putting the logo in character of the sign over the entrance. 4. Boardmember Rice suggested a canopy over the entrance with the sign might be considered. 5. Boardmember Wright asked if there was any trellis work on the east elevation. Boardmember Anderson suggested that pilasters be used with a small amount of trellis to break up this side of the building. 6. Boardmember Curtis asked why the additional landscaping was not included in the conditions. Staff stated they would like to have it added. 7. Mr. Chris Cooper, architect, addressed the concerns of the Board. He stated the east wall was the kitchen wall and stated he had no objection to the trellis treatment for the east elevation. 8. Boardmember Wright asked if the applicant had any objection to moving one of the signs. Discussion followed regarding the size and location of the signs. I �3; Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 9. Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant could warp the slab to get rid of the handicap ramp. The applicant stated they were still debating what to do with the ramp. 10. Boardmember Anderson asked if the top parapet could be broken up to give relief from the straight horizontal line. Discussion followed regarding the different alternatives that could be used. 11. Boardmembers discussed the colors used in the signs. 12. Boardmember Campbell asked if it was possible to break up the windows by putting another horizontal member at the bottom. The applicant stated he would rather put it at the top. Boardmember Wright questioned the height of the windows. The applicant stated they went to 8'9". The Board discussed additional treatment of the windows. 13. Boardmember Campbell questioned the illuminated address sign on the inside of the glass. The applicant stated this could be removed. Boardmember Wright asked there be address numbers somewhere on the building. 14. Chairman Harbison questioned the detail on the trellis structure but did not know the direction of the trellis members. The applicant explained the construction. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmembers Rice/Curtis to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-497 subject to staff conditions and the additional vertical landscaping and trellis treatment on the east elevation, Fan Palms to be a minimum of 8-feet, recess the windows 12-inches, and possible added treatment of the top parapet. Unanimously approved. F. Plot Plan 93-501; a request of Winchester Asset Management (for La Quinta Golf Properties) for approval of plans for a golf course clubhouse for "The Quarry" project located south and west of Lake Cahuilla. 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 Wright asked if there was a parapet around the building and would it be high enough to hide any mechanical equipment. The applicant stated it would. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be any DRB6-2 n38 Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 discharge ducts off the mechanical equipment on the condensing side to come through the trellis on the roof and could contain it without short cycling. Mr. Craig Pearson, architect, stated they saw no problems. Boardmember Wright stated the potential problems that could be encountered if they were not treated right. Mr. Pearson stated he would see that their engineer looked into the problem. 3. Mr. Craig Bryant, development managers for the project, spoke regarding the project. 4. Boardmember Campbell asked why real slate was not used instead of concrete slate on the roof. Mr. Bryant stated the concrete was being used in other places throughout the country and others have found it to be very favorable. Discussion followed regarding the advantages of using concrete over the slate. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked why the gable on the roof was to create a clerestory inside the building. The applicant stated it was to get some light inside the building. Commissioner Adolph questioned why they were not using skylights. Mr. Pearson explained why they preferred the gable roof. 6. Boardmember Anderson asked if the stone veneer would reflect the indigenous rock of the quarry. Mr. Pearson stated it would reflect the color. Mr. Bryant stated they would be using as much of the existing indigenous rock as possible. 7. Boardmember Rice asked if you would be able to see the clubhouse from the top of the dike. Mr. Bryant stated you would not. 8. Boardmember Curtis asked what the pad height of the building in relation to the berm that is existing. Mr. Bryant stated it was approximately one foot lower and the dike would continue to serve as a dike. 9. Boardmember Curtis asked what the materials were being used on the west and south side of the veranda. Mr. Pearson stated they were square wood columns. The vertical railing will be painted, very thin metal so as to not obstruct the view of the golf course with a wood cap so it will not be hot. 10. Chairman Harbison asked that the look should be more "ranch" looking rather than the "Southern" look. Mr. Pearson stated that hopefully with the use the stone, wood, and detail it would not have that look DRB6-2 8 Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 11. Boardmember Anderson stated he strongly supported the use of as much as possible the indigenous stone throughout the veneer. In addition, he would like to see real slate used rather than the concrete. Boardmember Campbell agreed that this would enhance the building. Both Boardmembers strongly expressed their approval of the project. 12. Chairman Harbison asked Mr. Bryant to explain the character of the golf course. Mr. Bryant stated the golf course would be a graded, undulating, with gradual elevation changes, with several waterfalls and water features. 13. Chairman Harbison discussed the landscaping with Mr. Bryant. Mr. Bryant stated they were working with a company to save as many of the existing trees as possible. 14. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Anderson/Harbison moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-501 subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. G. Plot Plan 93-501; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of preliminary plans for an entry design on Washington Street and review of general architectural guidelines for the Orchard project (previously The Pyramids). DRB6-2 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. Staff clarified that the project will be joined with the Orchard project to the south by an underground tunnel. 3. Boardmember Campbell asked for clarification on what the Board was to review. Members discussed with staff the drawings and the lack of the materials called out on the plans. 4. Mr. Chuck Strother, representing the applicant, addressed the Board concerning the project. 5. Boardmember Curtis asked if the entryway is to be curbed. Mr. Strother explained the entryway construction and landscaping of the entryway. P1 n�R Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 6. Boardmember Curtis asked if the grade would remain as it was planned originally. Mr. Strother stated it would be close to it. Boardmember Curtis asked whether the applicant was using uplighting in the area. Mr. Strother stated all the trees would be uplighted. 7. Boardmember Wright asked if a lane would be provided for left turns. Mr. Strother stated that would depend on whether there was a signal provided and this would be addressed when they start work on the engineering of the project. 8. Mr. Strother stated that the existing Orchard on the south side of Avenue 50 and the Pyramids project would be marrying the two projects together and connect them by a golf cart tunnel. The two would have aligned entrances on Avenue 50 which could possibly be signalized. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be an entrance on Jefferson Street. Mr. Strother stated yes as well as Adams Street and 48th Avenue and possibly one at Dune Palms. He stated there would be at least four entrances to the project. 9. Boardmember Anderson asked that the tile roof on the guard gate be a true Mission two piece tile. Mr. Strother stated it would be. 10. Commissioner Adolph asked that more detail be on the plans when it appears before the Planning Commission. 11. Boardmember Campbell stressed that he needed to see the materials called out on the plans in order to make a determination on the project. Boardmember Anderson reenforced the need to have complete plans presented to the Board. Mr. Strother went over the plans and called out the materials on the drawings. Members discussed the items the Board wanted on the plans with Mr. Strother. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmembers Anderson/Curtis to recommend a conceptual approval of the entry design subject to conditions with the stipulation that the individual Members would review the plans on Friday before the Planning Commission meeting and would voice any objections at the Planning Commission Study Session. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Boardmember Campbell asked that on Page 3, Item 12 "stucco" should replace the word "fence" and the last line change "they" to "it". Page 5, Item 11 add the word "....would be around the lg azed opening". Item 12 add the sentence, Boardmembers determined that they wanted multi -pane weld windows." Item #13 change the word "color" to DRB6-2 10 '"+_ Oil Design Review Board Minutes June 2, 1993 "columns". Item #15 remove the word "eliminate" and add the words, "separated from the building" and eliminate the words, "and there needed to be a tower effect on the circular building popouts". Boardmember Wright asked that Page 6, Item #18 questioned the fact that Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Simon was an investor in the project and that in the earlier meeting the Board had been told by Mr. Simon that he was not an investor. Boardmember Curtis pointed out that Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Simon was an investor not Mr. Simon. Members discussed the discussion. Boardmember Campbell asked that Page 5, Item #11 the word "elevations" should be changed to "plans". There being no further corrections Boardmembers Anderson/Rice moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of May 5, 1993, as corrected. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER - A. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt that in light of the joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission the Board had been charged to develop Design Guidelines and a checklist of minimal submittal document for the developers. He suggested that the next meeting be utilized to work on these items. Members discussed having a study session to discuss agenda items as well as the above noted items. Boardmember Campbell stated he had slides collection of signs, buildings, colors, and materials that would be of interest to the Boardmembers. Boardmember Anderson suggested that this presentation be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Boardmember Campbell stressed the importance of developing guidelines as soon as possible. B. Boardmember Campbell asked that staff inform the Automobile Club that their logo on the south elevation be centered and it is not. Discussion followed. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Rice/Curtis to adjourn to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on June 23, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 9:28 P.M., June 2, 1993. DRB6-2 11 a MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California June 23, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M. and Boardmember Campbell led the flag salute. H. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Barrows, and Chairman Harbison. Boardmembers Curtis/Wright moved and seconded a motion to excuse Boardmembers Rice and Anderson. Unanimously approved. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Plot Plan 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza for review of a revised elevation plan for a commercial project on 5.6 acres in the C-P-S Zone. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Phil Pead addressed the Board regarding the project. He addressed the changes that had been incorporated into the plans. 3. Boardmember Curtis asked if the applicant had any problem with any of the staff imposed conditions. Mr. Pead stated he did not. Boardmember Curtis discussed the alternatives for the cupola for the restaurant building and the two freestanding buildings. Mr. Pead stated they had hoped to have the two distinct with each having a different look. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern that all the buildings blend together with the same roof theme. Members discussed with Mr. Pead the look of the DRB6-23 1 043 Design Review Board Minutes June 23, 1993 buildings along with the issue of hiding the mechanical equipment. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the roof line looked like it was designed to hide the mechanical equipment. Members discussed the cupola style, height, and relationship to the other building. 4. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Pead to clarify the parking deck in regard to the railing and height. Mr. Pead explained the parking structure. Following discussion regarding the design and height of the structure, Boardmember Wright stated he felt more landscaping needed to be added to hide the cars from Highway 111. Members discussed different types of landscaping that could be used. 5. Boardmember Curtis asked if the east side of the parking structure would be open. Mr. Pead stated it would be. 6. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Pead to identify where the Simon Motors main building would sit in relation to the parking structure. Mr. Pead stated it was not as close to the curb as the parking structure. Commissioner Adolph asked how far the parking structure was from curb of Highway 111. Mr. Pead stated he thought it was 50-feet. Members felt it might be closer to 60-feet. 7. Boardmember Curtis asked in how many phases the project would be built. Mr. Pead stated it would be built in one phase. 8. Boardmembers stated they felt this design was much improved over the four story structure. Boardmember Campbell stated he felt the building needed to be articulated more. It needed indentation as it was too plain and the wall needed to do something. Mr. Pead stated his frustration with the repeated changes and even though his original building met the Code requirements, he still followed the desire of the Board and Commission and made the changes. He would like to be able to build his project. 9. Following the discussion, Boardmembers Curtis/Wright moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-495 subject to staff conditions with modifications as follows: a. The roof line of the two middle buildings be given the same roof line structure as the restaurant without the second cupola. The motion carried with Boardmember Campbell voting No, and Boardmembers Anderson and Rice being absent. DRB6-23 2 ' 044 Design Review Board Minutes June 23, 1993 B. Review and study of application submission requirements and/or development standards. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated he felt the application submission was an appropriate place for the Board to start. 2. Boardmember Curtis presented an outline that he felt the Board should follow. He further stated that he felt the Board was being pressured to approve projects that were less than what the City wanted. 3. Boardmember Wright felt the talents and abilities of the Boardmembers were causing the approvals to be improved over time. He felt the projects would continue to improve over time as the Board continues to grow and develop. 4. Boardmember Campbell felt the Design Review Guidelines were too vague. Staff stated that the purpose of these meetings was to have the Board review the necessary paperwork so that when the applicant completes the submitted work, the project plans are complete when it is before the Board so the Board can act and move the project on. The Council's direction is for the Board to move the project on rapidly with the best project possible. 5. Boardmember Curtis stated that when the applicants present their projects they do not address everything in the Guideline Checklist and if this is what the Board is to judge the project on, then these items should be addressed by the applicant. Discussion followed regarding the forms. 6. Boardmember Wright expressed his desire to have a study session to allow the Board to discuss the projects in an informal meeting. Members discussed their desire to have study sessions to go over agenda items. 7. Boardmember Wright stated he wanted the application to state who actually owns the property as well as who the applicant is. Members discussed the different projects that had been before them and who the actual owners were. 8. Commissioner Adolph stated the Board needed to devise what they wanted from the applicant. Boardmember Campbell stated he hoped the outline he prepared was a beginning. Chairman Harbison clarified which projects would need to have the detailed design guidelines. Members discussed preparing a document(s) that could be prepared for the applicants. DRB6-23 3 �45 Design Review Board Minutes June 23, 1993 9. Staff asked the Board to clarify what they wanted to work on. Boardmember Campbell stated there were two items. One was for the applicant to understand what the City wants from them and the other is all the designs and drawings for Board and Commission approval. Boardmembers stated they needed to work on design guidelines to be presented to the applicant. 10. Boardmember Campbell stated he had brought a slide presentation of what he felt the Board should be looking for in a design presentation. He would present the slides after the meeting. 11. Boardmember Curtis stated his concern as to whether the Board should set a criteria for the developer or for the Board to judge the project by. He did not think it was the Board function to design the project for the developer. 12. Staff asked what the Board wanted to see at their next study session. Chairman Harbison stated they would work on design review guidelines for the Board to critique the projects. Staff would provide copies of applications and submittal packages that staff gives to prospective developers. IV. ADJOURNMENT: Following discussion, Boardmember Curtis and Commissioner Adolph moved to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on July 7, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. with a study session to be held on July 14, 1993, at 5:30 P.M.. This meeting of the Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:11 P.M. DRB6-23 4 4. 4- C`n c �V 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 7, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M. and Planning Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Ellson, and Chairman Harbison. Boardmembers Anderson/Wright moved to excuse Boardmember Rice. Unanimously approved. B. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. C. Chairman Harbison opened the nominations for Chairman. Boardmembers Anderson/Wright moved to nominate John Curtis for Chairman. Unanimously approved. D. Chairman Curtis opened the nominations for Vice Chairman. Boardmembers Wright/Anderson nominated James Campbell. Boardmember Wright moved to close the nominations. Planning Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Boardmember Campbell was elected unanimously. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Plot Plan 93-504; a request of Winchester Asset Management (for La Quinta Golf Properties) for approval of plans for a maintenance building and security guardhouse. DRB7-7 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 Harbison asked staff to clarify the location. 1 Design Review Board Minutes July 7, 1993 DRB7-7 3. Boardmember Anderson asked what the status was of using a real slate roof. Mr. Craig Pearson, architect for the project, stated that the real slate was cost prohibitive as well as a concern for the weight on the structure. 4. Boardmember Campbell stated it did not feel the entrance was better than the Vintage in its appearance. Mr. Pearson stated that the Vintage has two entries with 200 foot entrances. This is a single entrance with a 60 foot entrance. 5. Chairman Curtis asked who owned the property on either side of the road. Mr. Mike Rowe, Keith Companies, stated it was privately owned and was subject to development but there was no access off this road. 6. Boardmember Wright stated the structure was extremely simple and no shade provisions. Mr. Pearson stated there was minimal landscaping due to the length of the 60 foot entrance and their desire was to have a simple elegant statement. Members discussed the simplicity of the guardhouse. 7. Boardmember Anderson stated this was simple design. More gate detail may add to the look. He would like to have had the designed gates presented for discussion. He was concerned because the entire look was not present. Mr. Pearson stated that the conditions stated that they must be ornamental and will be approved at the permit stage. He went on to explain the gate. 8. Boardmember Wright asked where the pilasters were located, the material to be used and the height. Mr. Pearson stated there were 31 altogether, 5'6" and will be simplistic in design, and will be veneer with wrought iron. Mr. Ken Alberstein, Ronald Gregory Associates, stated that the wrought iron will be simplistic due to the amount of landscaping and berming that will go in front of it. 9. Chairman Curtis asked if the fence would continue around the project. Mr. Alberstein stated it would be a combination. Where the wrought iron ends a block wall will continue. 10. Boardmember Wright felt the design was a disappointment in comparison to the clubhouse. Mr. Pearson went on to explain the detail of the building. Discussion followed among the members and the applicants regarding the simplicity of the project. Members expressed their desire to see something of more quality with more of an impact. E O4'C Design Review Board Minutes July 7, 1993 11. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked for a comparison in size between this project and the Vintage. Mr. Bryant stated this project was a lot smaller with only 65 residential lots. 12. Boardmember Harbison asked how many members to the club. Mr. Alberstein stated there would be 65 residences and 365 members. Discussion followed as to how many people would be utilizing the entrance. 13. Boardmember Harbison stated that other design features from the clubhouse could have been utilized on the guardhouse to restate the theme for the project. It is also an opportunity to take a long driveway and utilizing native plants that would lead to a lush green area and then back to a more native landscaping on the golf course. The applicant stated that they were using more drought tolerant plants rather than the native due to their customers request. A discussion of different plants was discussed. 14. Boardmember Harbison stated that he felt the lawn compromises part of the view of trying to make it more private. Plants with more height would be better utilized. The applicant stated that the lawn was used to give people a feeling of arriving at an oasis. 15. Boardmember Harbison stated that the Board needed to see conceptual designs of the pilasters, wrought iron, and entry gates. 16. Boardmember Wright asked where the parking was to be located near the entrance. One stall would not be sufficient. Mr. Bryant stated there were not planning on additional people stopping at this point. Additional parking could be provided. Members discussed locations where additional parking could be provided for workers, etc. 17. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked if hardscape could be used in the parking spaces in stone to carry out the stone feature and be an asset to provide a place for someone to park. In addition, some sort of shelter should be provided over the entering driveway to compensate for the heat. Mr. Pearson stated their were other height problems. It was suggested that a trellis or veranda column be provided. 18. Chairman Curtis suggested that the applicant extend the building and make it longer. DRB7-7 3 �� �49 Design Review Board Minutes July 7, 1993 DRB7-7 19. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt columns should be added and raising the building but a cover was not necessary. Discussion followed regarding incorporating some of the clubhouse features in the guardhouse. discussion followed as to alternatives and suggestions as to adding detail to the building. 20. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and Planning Commissioner Ellson to move to continue the guardhouse for a resubmittal as it relates to the landscaping, gates, and pilasters. Boardmember Wright asked that the additional parking spaces be added to the motion. Anderson/Ellson agreed and the motion passed unanimously. 21. Boardmember Campbell questioned the motion as to accepting the existing drawings. Boardmember Anderson stated he was not asking for the same drawings upgraded but asking the applicant to resubmit the guardhouse. 22. Chairman Curtis opened discussion on the maintenance building and stated he felt the building was lacking any character or design. Mr. Pearson stated the building had a 12-foot ceiling to carry a two foot barrel wall for a ten foot opening and a 3'6" truss and 6" parapet front and 16-feet long and they buried it from the adjacent lot at an elevation of 30-feet down to 20-feet. Chairman Curtis asked what would be on the roof. Mr. Pearson stated there would be nothing on the roof. 23. Boardmember Anderson asked for clarification on how far the maintenance building would be sunk down. Staff stated it would be ±10 feet below the existing grade. It was pointed out that the only part of the building that would be visible is that portion you could see through the Mesquite trees. 24. Boardmember Wright asked where the building could be seen from. Staff stated it may be seen from Cahuilla Park Road. 25. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked if Cahuilla Park Road at the dike was higher making the maintenance building visible. Mr. Mike Rowe, engineer for the project explained the layout of the building and the use of landscaping to help hide the building. 26. Chairman Curtis asked how much planting would be planted on the 2:1 slope without retaining walls, etc. Mr. Rowe stated it would be sufficient to hold the slope. Chairman Curtis asked if the wall was solid or did it 4 Design Review Board Minutes July 7, 1993 DRB7-7 have any tile accents. The applicant stated it would be solid because it would be obliterated within a year with the landscaping. 27. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to explain the maintenance gate. Mr. Rowe stated it was wrought iron with a mesh treatment to hide the entrance. Boardmember Anderson asked that the theme from the entry gate be incorporated into this gate. 28. Boardmember Campbell asked that the Conditions of Approval contain a restriction that the building would be obliterated by the landscaping within a year or year and a half. Discussion followed regarding what type and size of plants should be planted. It was determined that two years was ample time for the landscaping to reach full growth. 29. Boardmember Wright asked if the pilasters would be carried down the wall and at the gate. The applicant stated they could. 30. Boardmember Harbison asked the applicant if he had any objections to the Conditions of Approval. The applicant asked for clarification of Condition #1 regarding the word "decorative" gates. Discussion followed regarding the maintenance gate and a design element that would tie the two gates together. 31. Members discussed the lettering of the sign. Staff stated Boardmember Rice stated the "Q' of "Quarry" should be larger and the "Y" should be smaller. He felt the "Q" was out of balance. Mr. Pearson went into detail to describe the logo sign. Boardmembers stated the materials and color of the sign and stated they had no objection to the sign. 32. Boardmember Anderson asked what the lighting would be for the guardhouse. Mr. Pearson stated the lighting would be down lighting bullet lighting. 33. Mr. Ken Albertstein asked for clarification of Condition #5 regarding the size of the plants to be planted. He stated that most of the trees being planted would grow so rapidly that they felt they could downgraded to 15" instead of the 24". He also wanted clarification that the indigenous plants would start past the maintenance facility. Discussion followed regarding the plants and sizes. Boardmember Harbison stated he understood the desire to have an oasis effect around the guardhouse and entry gate but as you get away on the public side use native with a lot of indigenous Sonoran plants and then behind the guardhouse use semi Sonoran with s ()5.1 Design Review Board Minutes July 7, 1993 DRB7-7 other indigenous plants blending in with plants from other places in the world. But the use of citrus trees was not appropriate for this area. The applicant stated this was a request of the owner. Boardmember Harbison stated these should be used around the clubhouse. Discussion followed regarding indigenous Sonoran plants versus some of the South American or South African plants. 34. Planning Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the conflict was that the Board was envisioning a project that was more desert Southwest, natural material use of native rocks, and the owner is wanting a more lush, Hawaiian, eastern, grassy, project and the Board was trying to reach a compromise. The applicant stated that 80-85% of the project was going to be native and only 10% would give the homeowners the more lush feeling with the oasis look. 35. Boardmember Anderson stated he was willing to alter Condition #5 to 50% of the trees being 24" and that the maintenance building be hidden within two years. Discussion followed regarding the trees being used for screening. 36. Boardmember Anderson clarified Condition #6 in that the wrought iron gate and fencing be resubmitted with the plans for the guardhouse. 37. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Anderson/Wright moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-504 subject to the conditions as submitted and amended as follows: a. Condition #5: that 50% of the trees along Cahuilla Park Drive shall be a minimum of the 24" box size. b. Condition #6: The maintenance building would be hidden substantially within two years by the landscaping. The public gate details for the maintenance building shall be resubmitted with the guardhouse. C. The deletion of Condition #3. 38. Staff informed the Board that there would be a study session on July 14, 1993 and would the Board desire to have the applicant resubmit by that time. Boardmembers stated they would prefer to the item at their regular meeting of August 4, 1993. ., 11 C Design Review Board Minutes July 7, 1993 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR -None V. OTHER - A. Boardmember Wright asked staff if progress was being made in determining who owned the property for the projects being submitted. Staff stated that this was part of the application process and Board would be reviewing this at their study session. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson to adjourn to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on July 14, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:08 P.M., July 7, 1993. DRB7-7 7 f?,q5