Loading...
1993 09 01 DRBWily 0/ 9?a 2 fe in & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD A Special Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California September 1, 1993 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute II. ROLL CALL III. BUSINESS SESSION A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-008 AND VARIANCE 93-023; a request of Augustin Martinez (La Quinta Meat Market) for approval to remodel and enlarge an existing 1,581 square foot one story commercial building and a request to vary from the C-V-N zoning district standards (street sideyard setback) and modify the City's Off -Street Parking requirements for a building located on the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas. B. SIGN APPLICATION 93-215: LAGUNA DE LA PAZ SUBDIVISION; a request for approval of a permanent monument sign on Washington Street north of Eisenhower Drive. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - Approval of the Minutes for the regular meeting of the Design Review Board on August 4, 1993. V. OTHER VI. ADJOURNMENT ,nd.� , 001 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 PROJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-008 & VARIANCE 93-023 REQUEST: APPROVAL TO REMODEL AND ENLARGE AND EXISTING 1,581 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A REQUEST TO VARY FROM THE C-V-N ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS (STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK) AND MODIFY THE CITY'S OFF-STREET PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS APPLICANT: AGUSTIN MARTINEZ (LA QUINTA MEAT MARKET) PROJECT DESIGNER: GABRIEL LUJAN/ANTONIO MOSQUEDA (NEW AGE DESIGN) ARCHITECT: CHARLES D. GARLAND LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO & AVENIDA BERMUDAS Proposal The Applicant is proposing to remodel plus add on to an existing one story 1,581 square foot commercial building on 0.18 acres. The new building is designed to accommodate a new meat market as well as a small second story office for the owner. The new addition is approximately 930 square feet. The property is presently in the Village Specific Plan Area and is governed by the C-V-N Zone District provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code. A variance application is being requested to reduce the Avenida Bermudas building setback line from 25 feet to 6 feet for the new addition along the frontage of the site. He has also proposed a variance to 1) reduce the two-way driveway widths from 26-feet to approximately 23 and 24-feet, 2) have a handicap parking space on the property line, and 3) have approximately 18-foot long parking stalls. Surroundinq Land Use Site: Existing vacant building North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Existing Circle K store West: Date Grove Site Information The parcel is developed with a one story commercial building. Low voltage utility lines run along the southerly side of the property. Presently, both streets are paved at this time to allow two-way traffic movement. Curb, and gutter improvements were recently installed by the City. DRB9/l.GT/CS -1- v 0 02 Setbacks Existing Building New Building Front (Calle Tampico 10-feet 10-feet Exterior Side 43-feet 43-feet Street Side 6-feet 6-feet Rear 39-feet 25-feet * Note: A variance is requested. Background The existing vacant building was built in the early 1960's. The building was used by Mr. Louis Campagna (La Quinta Pharmacy) until recently. The Applicant purchased the property in July, 1993. Architecture The existing single story building has a flat roof (with parapet) with stucco exterior. A tile roofed entry exists on Calle Tampico on the south side of the building. The Applicant intends to install a new concrete tile roof for the two story addition and a concrete tile covered walkway and/or covered overhang around the three sides of the existing building. On the west and south elevations the covered walkway will extend to or over the street property line. On the east side the roof eave will extend over a portion of the resurfaced parking lot. The roof pitch for the pedestrian arcade will be 3:12 and 4:12 for the second story office. The building will be restuccoed and new architectural plant-ons will be used on along the top of the parapet and on the second story windows. The one and two story project is reminiscent of the Spanish Revival architectural motif and the materials which are used appropriate for the village area (stucco, exposed wood beams, tile roofing, etc.). The design style is appropriate for this area. Parking Lot The building has an existing parking lot on the east side of the building with access to the parking lot from Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas. The Applicant is proposing to resurface the parking lot and revise the existing angled parking with 90-degree parking. The parking spaces are 9-feet by 18-feet with a 24-foot (two-way) drive aisle. Seven parking spaces are proposed with one handicap space. The parking space on the north side of the building is for the owner. DRB9/l.GT/CS STAFF CONDITIONS: Staff would offer the following comments: 1. Incandescent uplighting should be used for the parkway landscaping. The fixtures shall meet the provisions of the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The lighting should include glare control features which will help direct the light to the trunk of the tree. The lights should be located either on the ground or eight feet off the ground mounted to the trunk of the tree. 2. The trash enclosure should include a separate pedestrian access way into the trash receptacle other than by using the front gates. Attached is a drawing of this design scenario. The trash enclosure dimensions should also be reevaluated. Landscaping should be used around the refuse area. 3. A sign concept has been submitted. The applicant has requested a roof mounded non -illuminated channel letter sign on the south elevation. The letters are painted brown. The sign will need to be relocated below the roof since such signs are prohibited. Staff would recommend that the sign program incorporate natural textures, possibly sandblasted wood sign, which could emulate the "village" character of this area. However, other materials could consist of routed wood, individual wood or metal letters, or other material. 4. The existing building is approximately 6-feet from the westerly property line. The new addition would extend the building along this 6-foot building setback line. The second story which is at the back is also 6-feet from the building setback line. This proposed setback does not meet the requirements of the C-V-N Zone District which requires a 25-foot building setback from any property line in order to reduce the future physical separation of buildings along the visual impact of the building on the street and to retain a pedestrian scale. The code does allow exceptions to this provision on a case -by -case basis if it is found that the integrity of the Village Specific Plan is being maintained. The Planning Commission will determine whether the setback adjustment will be permitted. 5. The meandering sidewalk on Calle Tampico should be eight feet wide to allow both pedestrian and bikeway traffic if required by the City Engineer. 6. The final sign program and landscape plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board. 7. A street tree program should be incorporated into the project for both street frontages. The trees should be spaced at 20-feet intervals. The program could consist of palms or canopy trees. The developer might examine using Jacaranda, Willow, Olive or other type of tree which is either colorful or feathery in texture. �. a. v DRB9/l.GT/CS -3- v Olt These types of trees will not block the visibility of the proposed building structure or hinder building sign identification. All parking lot trees should include deep well watering systems to ensure tree growth. 8. All landscaping areas should be irrigated by drip irrigation methods where possible and all nuisance water shall be retained on -site within the landscape areas or by other approved methods (e.g. drywell). 9. Decorative concrete paving should be used to accent the two-way driveway entry on Calle Tampico. The textured paving should be concrete and colored to add attention to this area. The texturing should be the width of the driveway and 18-feet in length on -site. 10. All exposed wood beams should be made of rough sawn lumber with decorative exposed rafter tails. The beams should not be painted or stuccoed. The roof structure shall not extend into the City's right-of-way. 11. The architecture materials and colors of the building shall be architecturally compatible (i.e. identical architecture, colors, and/or materials) with the Village Specific Plan Design Goals. Cement plaster texture used on building shall be of a decorative nature and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. A landscape planter should be installed between the 90-degree parking stalls and the east side of the building. This would eliminate the need for the concrete wheel -stops. The planter should be 2 1/2 feet wide. 13. The ninth parking stall should be removed because it will impact on -site circulation movement. A landscape planter should be installed in its place. The driveway should be a one-way driveway for site exiting per the Engineering Department standards. 14. The one on -site handicap space should be redesigned to meet the A.D.A. standards (e.g. 8-foot ramp plus 8-foot wide parking space). 15. The windows and doors along Calle Tampico should be single, small -pane division openings (e.g. French doors, casement opening windows). The windows and doors should be recessed into the building not less than six inches. A stuccoed plant -on detail should be added around these facilities to add character to the proposal. The frames should be wood, but metal will be allowed if it is anodized or painted a dark color. 16. Additional architectural fenestration should be added to the east, west and south elevations similar to the north elevation. 17. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by the decorative stucco parapet per municipal code requirements. n c 4. , v Ov DRB9/l.GT/CS -4- 18. Recessed lighting should be used along the covered pedestrian walkway for security and safety reasons. 19. Decorative lighting should be used on the east side of the building in the parking lot for patron safety if the facility is to be open during evening hours. 20. The building corners should be beveled or rounded to create interest in the overall design of the building. 21. Colored or textured paving should be used along the south side of the building. 22. Ceramic tile accents should be used on the south elevation. 23. The underside of the pedestrian arcade should be wood planking or exterior plaster. 24. Landscape planter should be provided adjacent to the west side of the building and contain ground cover and medium (6-feet) tall shrubs. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the plans in light of the above Staff comments. Should the Design Review Board feel revisions are needed, conditions requiring review by the Staff or Design Review Board before submission to the Building and Safety Department. Attachments: 1. Large Plans 2. Vicinity Map 3. Trash Enclosure Detail (with pedestrian access way) 4. 0-U OOl DRB9/l.GT/CS -5- w � � •� e , i � r � Z � INNER i �1.1 �� rn �3X3M3rW FT.-1 I se nmaa8 epLuaA !��� lam•; / J �v� 9 YdIN3AY J f. ] J•CJ . ✓J F+ Jf I 4? I J eJ, l � i J i JJ Jf�J 3luuuvu• Cy'i>>, t•J�1 iLA ��: is .,� .�_i. .-„ ,-:;•_'.r-. � =�:�j o -.ram-�� vTnn �vawnnv 1 I YLO@LDI Y@6AY T T i i � i JJJ mivaYw vmrinY . I I � �l r ,III (Y�QWT3AY ���� ,•� 00^, W I H LL O C } O t O m Z c O M C � N W y� Co ti \\ Q a M H _ I Q , ® -I \ O � c.►w�wx►- ufJQm N . \ 1 Ae HE STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 CASE: SIGN APPLICATION 93-215; LAGUNA DE LA PAZ SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: ROGER SNELLENBERGER (ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOCIATES) REPRESENTATIVE:JEFF PETRUS SIGN CONTRACTOR: SIGNS BY MEL REQUEST: FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS APPROVAL FOR A PERMANENT MONUMENT SIGN ON WASHINGTON STREET, NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. BACKGROUND: On August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a conceptual sign sketch depicting a freestanding permanent sign for Washington Street identifying the existing residential development. Mr. Jeff Petrus, the Applicant's representative, had verbally stated the sign would be either made of slumpstone block or poured in place concrete. The raised sign letters would be made of 114" cast aluminum and painted to match the existing main entry sign on Eisenhower Drive. Mr. Petrus has stated that they are contemplating uplighting for the non -illuminated letters. The new sign will be located approximately 600 feet north of Eisenhower Drive (i.e. where the existing city model home tour sign is located), See the attached information. The Planning Commission approved the request based on the following Conditions: 1. The sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the existing property line. 2. If landscape lighting around the sign is proposed, the fixture type and wattage shall be approved by the Planning Director during plan check. 3. The final construction drawings for the sign shall be approved by the Design Review Board. 4. A building permit shall be required to construct the sign. 5. The sign colors shall be consistent with the existing color scheme of the existing signs on Eisenhower Drive (e.g, teal, black and peach). 6. No additional permanent signs will be allowed for the project once the Washington Street sign has been installed. STAFFRPT.016 000 ANALYSIS: Mr. Petrus submitted his Design Review Board packet to staff on August 27, 1993. A slumpstone structure will be built for the new monument sign based on the attached letter. The plans are consistent with the conceptual design submittal approved on August 24th. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should evaluate the final construction drawings of the Applicant per the Planning Commission's action of August 24, 1993. Attachments: Site Plan Sign Exhibits STAFFRPT . 016 7. 0_ , n ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOC., INC. LAND DEVELOPMENT 55-695 PEBBLE BEACH LA QUINTA, CA 92253 August 27, 1993 Mr. Greg Trousdell City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Subject: Sign Application 93-215, Laguna De La Paz Dear Greg, The following are the apecification for the above referenced monument sign. Material Type: Structure will be slumpstone, similar to the perimeter wall. The structure itself will be reinforced with #2 rebar. The tops will have a Blockwall Cap. There will be a minimum 18" footing. As can be seen by the drawing the width will start at seven feet at the bottom decreasing gradually to four feet at the top. The total height will be five foot, top to bottom. Depth will be one foot. Colors: Slumpstone will be painted the same color as the perimeter wall. "Laguna" will be in the teal color, "De La Paz" in Black color. "Laguna" will have 12" lettering, "De La Paz" will have 6" lettering. I will give spec's on the logo at the meeting. If lighting is used, we will get all approvals from the planning director during plan check. If you have any questions, please call at (619) 777-7767. Sincerely, Jeff f Petrus Roger Snellenberger and Associates n A.A. 1 012 /l �'• d F Ir 1 Lf Q� -� t 11'n'1�InIuIIn1I, i�, \ y fi- t, 9 1 '? 013 1_10 w I V d cn. C;l a� N o14 9 �Q V ?A it of ' 'RiL C71 L lR' W 1a i t r - 2 r kt, 4•$-A I ' 016 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California August 4, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Curtis brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, David Harbison, Randall Wright, James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Ellson, and Chairman Curtis. Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson moved to excuse Boardmember Rice. Unanimously approved. B. Staff present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Public Use Permit 93-016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of architectural plans for the La Quinta Sculpture Park, located at 57-325 Madison Street, north of 58th Avenue. DRBS-4 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 Campbell asked if the Board was approving the entire project or just Phase I. Staff clarified the entire project was for their review and approval. 3. Mr. Bernardo Gouthier spoke briefly on his project. Commissioner Wright asked what the exterior texture would be and if the railings would be constructed during the first phase. Mr. Gouthier stated they had i Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 DRB8-4 eliminated the aluminum and the railings would not be built in the first phase. Mr. Stan Pollakusky, architect for the project, explained what the first phase would consist of. 4. Boardmember Harbison clarified that the portion that was originally brushed aluminum was now to be stucco. Boardmembers questioned why the change. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt staff and the Boardmembers were concerned that the aluminum was causing some concern. Mr. Pollakusky stated the stucco allowed them to soundproof the building as well as give them some versatility in color. 5. Boardmember Anderson asked if stucco was to be used would the diagonal braces and standing ribs go away. Mr. Pollakusky stated they would remain as they are part of the structure. Boardmember Anderson stated he would like to see the metal used. He felt the stucco would detract and weaken the concept of the building. Mr. Gouthier stated they would prefer to use the metal. It was suggested that micro zinc be used. 6. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern how the applicant could construct the building with some of the two story elements being built after the first story. He asked if the building would be built in phases. Mr. Gouthier stated he hoped to build Phase two in approximately nine months. Boardmember Anderson was concerned that the first phase was only going to be box with no detail and lack any design character. Mr. Gouthier stated they hoped to be open in October in order to have the school in operation. Discussion followed regarding the transition of building the first phase to the second phase. 7. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any objections to the staff conditions. Mr. Gouthier pointed out that he was having a problem receiving his mail. He lives in La Quinta but his mail is delivered by the Thermal post office. Staff clarified that they have been trying to solve this problem and it is in the process. 8. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant could incorporate the columns into the first phase. Mr. Pollakusky stated that he could articulate the building to make it interesting until the second phase is constructed. 9. Boardmember Anderson stated this was a problem for the Board as they were not looking at what they were asked to approve. The Board needed to see the proposed building to be built. z Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 DRBB-4 10. Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant would have any problem with a condition that required the entire building to be built within nine months after completion of Phase I. Mr. Gouthier stated this could be a hardship on him and he would prefer that the condition read completion before December, 1994. Mr. Gouthier stated he did not want to over extend himself. 11. Boardmember Campbell stated that there was a portion of the building that was not seen on the drawings. Mr. Pollakusky stated he could submit drawings showing the different elevations. 12. Chairman Curtis stated he would prefer to see drawings of the Phase I building. Mr. Pollakusky stated he would have no problem submitting a design for the Board review. 13. Boardmember Anderson asked what landscaping was proposed for the building. Mr. Gouthier stated the landscaping was already there. Boardmember Harbison stated the adjoining property owners should be screened from view. He suggested that trees be planted along the perimeter. Mr. Gouthier stated he had already started planting Eucalyptus trees. Chairman Curtis stated the applicant would need to submit a landscaping plan before he could receive a building permit therefore, it would be to his advantage to submit the plans as soon as possible in order to meet his October deadline. 14. Boardmember Wright stated he saw no reason why the first phase building could not stand alone. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt there was some confusion as to what was to be built in Phase I. He went on to explain that the caretakers facility would be constructed in Phase I. Members discussed what would be built in Phase I. 15. Based on the lack of information and drawings, Boardmember Anderson moved to recommend the Planning Commission refer this project back to the Design Review Board in order to review the Phase I building only. Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and discussion followed regarding the portion to be constructed in Phase I. Staff clarified the hearing process before the Planning Commission and Design Review Board for the Board. It was determined the matter could go to the Planning Commission as a business item only for a referral back to the Design Review Board, but a public hearing for the Planning Commission to act on the project could not be held until September 14, 1993. 3 0l Q v Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 16. Boardmember Campbell stated he had strong objections to react to plans without seeing all four sides. 17. After further discussion on the review process, Boardmembers Anderson/Wright withdrew the motion and moved to approve Public Use Permit 93-016 with a recommendation that separate drawings be completed for Phase I and Phase lI and if the Planning Commission so desire to refer the project back to the Design Review Board, subject to the Conditions of Approval with the addition of a non -reflective alternative metal be submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 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. DRB8-4 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. Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to staff. Staff stated they were. 3. Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be applying to for a variance to the parking requirement. 4. Boardmember Wright asked for clarification on the variance. Mr. DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door. Discussion followed regarding the parking space. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked what the market would be, apartments or condominiums. The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums but they have not filed a subdivision map with staff. 6. Boardmember Wright asked if they would be low income. Mr. DeCoster stated they would be affordable units (i.e., low and moderate income units). 4 C 0 029 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 DRB8-4 7. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone. Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred an open landscaped area that would give a more open feeling for the green belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the low income group which normally have children and the fencing would give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing. 8. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck entry. Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember Wright asked if the second entrance would be a crash gate. Staff stated it would be. 9. Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or a metal (roll -up vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr. DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll -up because they were attractive but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the street. Discussion followed regarding the garage door type and material. 10. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the recreation building should be single story so not to create a cavity effect. Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units. 11. Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to the wall on the east side of Washington Street. Mr. DeCoster stated it would be a block wall but he felt the 20-feet of landscaping would be more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., the cap). Following discussion, the Board determined the 20-feet of landscaping was preferable to the tile treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would be used for the perimeter areas. 12. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be at the entrance. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there 5 021 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 DRBB-4 did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g., 36-feet wide). 13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the wood fencing between the units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than this would detract from the overall look of the project. Mr. DeCoster stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that have been constructed in other projects have been attractive. 14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20-feet of landscaping is included in the 30-foot setback. Staff stated it was included. 15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Anderson/Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff conditions, and as amended as follows: a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations for the half two story half one story unit for their approval. b. Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile. C. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco color on Washington Street. d. The driveway should be 36-feet wide on Washington Street with two lanes in and one lane out. VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Anderson, Harbison, Wright, Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: Boardmember Rice. ABSTAINING: None. 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. 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. 2 022 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 2. There being no questions of staff, Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President Forecast Homes gave a presentation of the project. 3. Commissioner Ellson asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strickland stated they had not been finalized but planned on a range of $102,900 to $128,000. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked what the name of the project would be. Mr. Strickland stated it would be called "New Beginnings" as most of their buyers were first time buyers. 4. Boardmember Wright expressed his concern that the existing property owners would have their property values affected. He felt the new homes should be graduated in and make a slow transition to the smaller homes. Mr. Strickland stated he was required by law to offer 10% of the smallest plan (Plan #2) as this was their entry level product. Discussion followed as to which lots should have the larger homes. 5. Boardmember Anderson asked if the existing property owners would be notified of the changes. Staff stated they would be notified of the August 24th Planning Commission meeting but it is not a requirement. 6. Boardmember Anderson stated the river rock veneer was not appropriate for La Quinta. Mr. Strickland stated he would use the veneer on the northern portion of the project. Boardmember Anderson asked if there was a stone veneer that is "culture" with a warmer shade than the cold slate grey shown on the sample board. The applicant stated he would look for something more earthy in the warmer colors for the homes adjacent to Phase I. 7. Boardmember Wright questioned the 18" overhang and dual glazing on the windows. Boardmember Anderson also stressed the importance of the building overhangs. Mr. Strickland stated there was dual glazing and he would have a small overhang. 8. Boardmember Campbell stated the river rock veneer was not a desert product. He would prefer a different material such as slumpstone, tile, etc. Mr. Strickland stated he would talk to his marketing people but he would not use the tile as their company does not use this type of material on their homes. 9. Chairman Curtis asked how many of the smaller units would be built and what was the square footage of the units. Mr. Strickland stated he was required to have 10% of the units in his smaller home design if it was DRB8-4 022'7 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 DRBB-4 offered, as required by law. Plan #2 was 1100 square feet and Plan #3 was 1237 square feet. 10. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like the units to be a minimum of 1,200 square feet. Mr. Strickland discussed the different type of units they build and the reason for the 1,106 square foot house size. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant would object to the Board placing a minimum number of these units in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strickland stated he would prefer to have the flexibility to sell what the market is asking for. Discussion followed as to what other developments were offering regarding unit sizes. It was stated that La Quinta Del Rey offers a similar type home size to their request. 11. Commissioner Ellson questioned the use of the half round windows on the right side and rear elevation regarding the amount of heat they allow in. The applicant stated they were designed to add light to the dining rooms. 12. Boardmember Campbell asked about the multi -pane windows. Mr. Strickland stated they were metal inserts painted white. 13. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Harbison/Campbell moved to recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-505 subject to the conditions with the following conditions being added: a. The deletion of Condition #8. b. Lot 2 would be either a Plan 5 or 6; lot 96 would be a Plan 6; Lot 100 would be a Plan 5; lot 101 would be a Plan 6; and lot 116 would be a Plan 5. C. The yellow area which contains lots 6, 7, 74-80, 102-104, 114, and 115 would only contain Plans 4, 5, or 6 to allow a transition from the existing tract (Phase I). C. No dark colors will be allowed on lots 2, 6, 7, 74-80, 99-104, or 114-116. d. An alternate desert tone to be offered in -lieu of the river rock. e. The elimination of Condition #10. Unanimously approved. 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 48th Avenue within "The Orchard" project. n n G 4 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. He presented revised units with sizes slightly different from the submitted plans. 2. Mr. Chuck Strother gave a presentation of the units proposed. Chairman Curtis asked how the units would be mixed. Mr. Strother stated the styles would be grouped together with the mix of the different sizes. 3. Boardmember Wright asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strother stated the largest unit would sell for $399,000, the tennis units $160- 175,000, and the 1800 square foot model $219,000. 4. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern about the applicant using simulated materials instead of the authentic materials. Mr. Strother stated that the authentic materials made the project exceed their intended costs and the decision was made to reduce material costs and spend the money on the public building. 5. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any concern regarding the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strother stated he did not. 6. Boardmembers Anderson and Planning Commissioner Ellson moved and seconded a motion to recommend approval of the revised plans for Specific Plan 84-004, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. E. Specific Plan 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage south of 48th Avenue within "The Orchard" project. DRBB-4 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman 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 if the citrus would be used similar to his other project where they are individually irrigated. Mr. Strother stated he would be utilizing the citrus from the south side of his property and would be planted the same way. Boardmember Harbison asked if they were mature trees. Mr. Strother stated they were. Commissioner Ellson asked if the fruit would be harvested. Mr. Strother stated he would not. They would be available for the homeowners. 0 n2� Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 3. Boardmember Wright asked when the project would start. Mr. Strother stated they were in the process now. Bids were out and they hopes to have the main street paved and landscaped by Thanksgiving. 4. Boardmember Harbison asked what the length would be for the lawn strip at the corner for the street curb. Mr. Strother stated it would be approximately 25-30 feet coordinating with meandering sidewalk. They proposed to be 8-12 foot meander but they will work this in conjunction with the trees as well as the Imperial Irrigation District transformer box locations. 5. Boardmember Harbison stated he felt the use of the Aptenia ground cover would not survive the summer well as there was to much sun exposure. The applicant stated he would look into an alternate and asked for any suggestions the Board would recommend. Boardmember Harbison asked if lawn would be planted around the citrus and what type of irrigation would be used. He stressed that water was not thrown onto the trees and large headers around each of the trunks and individually irrigation the trees and irrigate the grass separately. Mr. Strother stated they were aware of the problem and plans will be made to cover the irrigation problems. 6. Commissioner Ellson questioned Condition #1 regarding the landscaping to work with Parc La Quinta. Mr. Strother stated his landscape architect would be working to make the two sides compatible. 7. Boardmember Harbison noticed Condition #2 Oleanders are to be used and it should be stated they be dwarf Oleanders. Discussion followed as to where to use each type of the Oleanders. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell/Anderson to recommend approval of the preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage for Specific Plan 84-004, subject to conditions with the amendment to Condition #2 that the meandering sidewalk be approved by staff. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR DRB8-4 Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 2, 1993. Commissioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission Representative be corrected to read Commissioner Adolph. Boardmember Campbell asked that the word "weld" on 10 02F Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 page 10, last paragraph be deleted. There being no further corrections, Boardmembers Campbell/Harbison moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 23, 1993. Boardmember Campbell asked that Page 2, third line the word "only" be added to read "...like it was gLnly designed to hid...". Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 7, 1993. There being no additions or corrections, Boardmembers Campbell/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER - A. Chairman Curtis asked if staff had received information from all the Boardmembers regarding the rewriting of Board Guidelines. Staff stated almost everyone had submitted material. Boardmember Harbison stated he was working on landscaping guidelines but had not submitted them as of yet. Following discussion, members asked staff to agendize the guidelines so if there was time they could continue to work on the guidelines. B. Boardmember Campbell expressed his disappointment with the Planning Commission disregarding the entire Board's recommendation to see a guardhouse of better quality. In addition, he expressed his concern for so much advertising banners for the Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor. Staff stated they had received Council approval for the signs for a "Grand Opening". Otherwise they were allowed 10% of the window. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell/Harbison to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on September 1, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 9:38 P.M., August 4, 1993. DRB8-4 11 3 i e 78.495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 August 27, 1993 Design Review Board City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Design Review Board: As part of the Dedication Ceremony for the new Civic Center, a time capsule will be filled and buried. The capsule will be placed behind the monument sign at the corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. It is scheduled to be re -opened in fifty years. In order to make the contents of the time capsule representative of the entire community, your input is requested. Please feel free to share this letter with your Board Members, Commissioners or anyone you deem appropriate. The ideas are limitless. Below are some items that could be included: *Membership Roster •Photographs *Popular publications and/or catalogs *Timely cartoon, bumper sticker, or button. •Clothing/Uniform (imagine it on a mannequin in 50 years) *Artifacts •Books by local authors •Maps *Yearbooks •Genealogies of local families •Brochures of current products (cars, electronic equipment, etc.) oStamps •Calendar of Events We want your imagination and creativity to help us make the time capsule exciting and informative. 0.28 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 The deadline for including items is September 17th. All items must be preserved properly, so please don't miss the deadline. The time capsule is 24" x 36". Final selection of the items to be included in the time capsule will be at the discretion of the City Council. If you have any questions, please call Pamela LiCalsi at 777- 7100. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, 4-� John J. Pena Mayor JJP:kb cc: City Council City Manager 020