1993 12 15 DRBA Special Meeting to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
December 15, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
IL ROLL CALL
III. BUSINESS SESSION
A. SIGN APPLICATION 93-235; a request of Palm Royale Country Club/Dave
Evans for approval of a permanent freestanding monument sign to be placed near
the southeast comer of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street.
B. SIGN APPLICATION 93-215 AMENDMENT MI-LAGUNA DE LA PAZ; a
request of Roger Snellenberger for approval to amend and relocate the previously
approved permanent monument sign for the existing residential development on
the west side of Washington Street north of Eisenhower Drive.
C. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL; a request of Mr. Jimmy R. Crowell, Century
Homes for approval of architectural plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta
Highlands Tract 23269 - La Quinta Del Rey.
C. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - None
V. OTHER
VL ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
December 13, 1993, Monday
La Quinta City Hall Session Room
CANCEL LED
BI #1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
STAFF REPORT
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1993
CASE: SIGN APPROVAL 93-235
APPLICANT: PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB/DAVE EVANS
BACKGROUND:
Palm Royale Country Club has applied to the City for review and approval of a
permanent freestanding monument sign to be placed near the southeast corner of
Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street (Attachment No. 1) . In the past, the club
has relied on temporary banners, flags, and illegal signs to advertise their golf and
restaurant facilities to the public. The applicant now desires to have an approved
permanent sign.
REQUEST:
The applicant originally submitted a request for a 12-foot high v-shaped sign. Staff
requested that the sign be lower as 8-feet is the maximum allowed by the sign
Ordinance. Subsequently, a revised exhibit was submitted (Attachment No. 2)
which features a total height of 6-feet. The sign is a freestanding monument sign
with a v-shape and two sign faces. The base is a 2-foot high painted v-shaped
concrete base with a teal accent strip around the top. The base 8-feet by 3-feet for
each arm of the "v". The sign will have reversed vinyl lettering ranging from 2-
inches high to 9-inches high as depicted in Attachment No. 3. A lucite inlay will be
used for the sign display area. The backdrop is pressure -treated wood and
measures 4-feet by 8-feet.
The colors proposed for the sign are burgundy, teal, and misty beige. These colors
are similar to the colors used on the project entry sign located approximately 1600-
feet east of the intersection, on Fred Waring Drive. Color samples have been
provided. Lighting for the sign is to be above ground landscaping, 160 watt
incandescent spots.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the revised exhibits which more closely meet the sign ordinance
requirements for such a sign. However, a sign adjustment will also need to be
approved as the ordinance permits such signs at project entrances only. This sign
is not at the Palm Royale entrance which is located on Fred Waring Drive,
approximately 1600-feet east of the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Washington
Street. The sign is located on privately -owned property within the country club,
out of the public right-of-way. Staff agrees that signage is needed for the
restaurant and that the proposed sign and its location may be suitable.
STAFFR T.024
1. ♦.. 6 0 0 ��
Staff is concerned with the space behind the sign and suggests that some sort of low
shrub be planted to fill in this area. In addition, the sign should be consistent with
the existing entry sign in materials as well as colors. The existing sign has a
wooden background and the lettering consists of both block style and script style.
Staff recommends that the proposed sign have same lettering style as the existing
sign, but that the potential maintenance issue with either a wood background or a
lucite background is about the same.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute motion 93- recommend approval of Sign Application 93-235 with a sign
adjustment to the Planning Commission, subject to attached conditions of approval.
Attachments:
Site Plan
Exhibit A - Revised
Exhibit B
STAFFRPT.026
004-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SIGN APPROVAL 93-235
PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB
DECEMBER 15, 1993
1. Signage shall be limited to the one freestanding sign depicted on Exhibit "A -
Revised". Any additional signage shall be submitted for approval of the
Planning and Development Department pursuant to the requirements of
Chapter 9.212, Sign Regulations.
2. The applicant shall plant low- growing shrubs (5 gallon) in the open "v" space
behind the sign.
3. The lettering style of the sign shall match that on the existing project
entrance sign.
4. The width of the sign shall be reduced from 8-feet to 6-feet for each of the
arms of the "v" .
5. The applicant shall submit a landscaping, irrigation and lighting plan that
addresses any modifications or additions to the existing irrigation system, new
lighting for the sign, and required landscaping for the sign as called for in
condition No. 2.
6. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building & Safety
Department prior to installation of the sign.
CCNA RVL.010
J
I..-ll J 0 0 5
I Z
Attachment 1
D
L"
Dq
z
i
-3 h 2f? 9 (N revnn a9�U
r1 lsOJ
�l Jpori
S3ibo1�3aa ui� �'
r
� 3
s -
E
t
Di
r-
rn
z
I
Z
i n
1 CASE NO. 23 �>;l
I, f.0 1, 0 0 l
I
T I ,' �-- ('OWMM 41iEGhr 4F7
1 �
a
N/
l
c
Op 71
tl`
j
r rn
EXHIBiT
CASE NIO. - L�
Attachment 2
M'
c
z
U
z
F
Attachment 3
I
J
I—
W
L0
W
OC
W
W
�1
Q
ttvv
�N
W
N
0
0
a
V1 2
1<
9
EXHIBIT
no
BI #2
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1993 (SPECIAL MEETING)
CASE: SIGN APPLICATION 93-215 (AMENDMENT #1); LAGUNA DE LA
PAZ SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: ROGER SNELLENBERGER
(ROGER SNELLENBERGER &ASSOCIATES)
SIGN
CONTRACTOR: SIGNS BY MEL
REQUEST: TO AMEND AND RELOCATE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PERMANENT MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, NORTH OF EISENHOWER
DRIVE
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 1/4"
cast aluminum and painted to match the existing main entry sign on Eisenhower
Drive. Mr. Petrus had stated that they are contemplating uplighting for the non -
illuminated letters. The sign was located approximately 600 feet north of Eisenhower
Drive (i.e. where the existing City model home tour sign is located). See the
attached information (Attachments 1-4). The sign has not yet been constructed.
Design Review Board
The Design Review Board reviewed the final sign concept for the initial sign as
required by the Planning Commission on September 1, 1993. The Board required the
applicant to build a sign structure (i.e. slumpstone block) which was consistent with
the two existing entry signs on Eisenhower Drive. The applicant's representative
concurred with this requirement. The only variation would be the type of material
used for the sign letters. The new sign letters would be cast aluminum which is
different from the metal channel letters which were constructed by the initial
developer in 1985. See the Design Review Board Minutes of September 1, 1993
(Attachment 8).
Amendment Request
On December 6, 1993, staff received a new request by the applicant to modify the
Planning Commission's approval of August 24, 1993. The new request proposes
STAFFAPT.023
,.,.. 0 0
placing the sign at the northeast corner of the Laguna De La Paz project (i.e.,
Washington Street and 48th Avenue) . The developer has stated that his reason for
moving the sign is that he believes the sign will have better exposure than its
previous location because the original location was partially blocked by existing
trees. He also said he would like to emulate the new Rancho La Quinta signage on
Washington Street. The sign is approximately five feet high and seventeen feet long
with terraced sides. The sign is approximately 12 square feet. In order for the sign
to be visible, the applicant proposes to remove the easterly most 1716" of the existing
perimeter wall along the north property line. Copies of the developer's plans are
attached (Attachments 5 & 6).
The developer's sign application is different from the previous approval in the
following ways:
(1) Gatorfoam (1" thick) letters are proposed in lieu of the painted cast aluminum
letters.
(2) The sign is larger and has been relocated from the southeast portion of the
site to the northeast corner of the development.
(3) The original sign was perpendicular to Washington Street (two-sided) versus
the new sign which is one-sided and proposed to be diagonal to Washington
Street and visible to south bound traffic.
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The sign shall be a minimum distance of 19'-6' from the back edge of the
existing street curb.
2. The sign will be non -illuminated unless a lighting program is approved by the
Planning Commission (e.g. Sign Adjustment).
3. The sign colors shall be consistent with the existing color scheme of the
existing signs on Eisenhower Drive.
4. No additional permanent signs will be allowed for the project once this sign is
installed.
5. The monument sign shall be constructed of slumpstone masonry block similar
in size and shape to the perimeter security wall. The sign background shall
be painted white or off-white to match the existing wall. Each terraced
section of the sign should include a masonry cap (e.g. 4-inch) similar to the
sign structures on Eisenhower Drive and the design of the perimeter security
wall.
6. The sign letters shall be flush mounted to the slumpstone block wall surface
(e.g. sandblasting the masonry surface). Gatorfoam letters shall not be
permitted. Letter material shall be approved by the Director of Planning and
Development.
STAFFRPT.023
,. `�- OZf-
The final construction drawings for the sign shall be approved by the Director
of Planning and Development.
A building permit shall be required to construct the sign.
Staff is recommending against the use of the Gatorfoam letters because the foam
might not withstand the summer heat. Staff would support an alternative type of
material other than the cast aluminum letters provided the material is designed to
withstand irrigation overspray, and other climatic occurrences.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Design Review Board recommend approval to the Planning Commission of the
sign application amendment subject to the draft conditions.
Attachments:
1. Site Plan
2-4 Previously approved Exhibits
5-6 New Sign Application Request
7. Planning Commission Minutes
8. Design Review Board Minutes
STA FA T.023
L C
w O
N
O Y
O. C O 0 U
L •r O
d N J
fill
JF
�
0
C
ro O
R
ATTACHMENT 1
C
•r pt U
i •r O
O N J
s�1
ii Jrti�.Yr
e a
ATTACHMENT 2
/
77 .-
1-ma
ATTACHMENT 3
j--j z
. ; ,JL. N � !
`r tD
i
p�41 * (�)
sLCAn .
-i
et pprt;,Vw x
ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOC., INC.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
August 27, 1993
Mr. Greg Trousdell
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
55.695 PEBBLE BEACH
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTACHMENT 4
Subject: Sign Application 93-215, Laguna De La Paz
Dear Greg,
The following are the apecification for the above referenced
monument sign.
Material Tvpe• Structure will be slum stone 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,
Je f Petrus
Roger Snellenberger and Associates
x AUG 2 7 1993
5
A
%T
r
R
3
°'
0
N
rn ii a
n
M;
ATTACHMENT 5
�1
F
Q'i/1
U j t�
IQ'
f yvi
I
I
Qa f
f
x >.
z
a
a 2.
a MCN---n%2,A-�
104� cab 01 C
Jp,4 Fpp 17W Iq SNOIS PPOP PJJ 919 50:11 PO-P1-PPP
UN <—
�.� cn
C"
cY
O
W
ATTACHMENT 6
MM �� 4
0 E
G mev>r1 mew,
FOCI F00 12W J.8 SNOTS PPnR r)) PT4 aneTT on_ar_rccT
ATTACHMENT 7
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
5. There be' no further discuss , it was moved Commissione lson
and ded by Chairwo Barrows to a t Minute Mot' 93 040
appr mg Specific PI 84-004 "Ran La Quinta" chitectural
el tions for reside units, subj to conditions. nanimously
proved.
VI.
PCB-24
Sign Application 93-215; a request of Roger Snellenberger for a sign adjustment
to allow a permanent monument sign on Washington Street, north of Eisenhower
Drive.
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. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarification the location of the sign
and power box at the corner. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant,
showed the location and gave a brief explanation of why the sign was
needed.
3. Commissioner Ellson questioned the location as being the same location
as the Building Industry Association signs and in addition if this sign was
allowed, the for sale sign (billboard) would be removed. Staff stated the
temporary sales sign would expire on its own.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93-041 approving
Sign Application 93-215 to allow a permanent monument sign, subject to
conditions. Unanimously approved with the addition of Condition #6
which requires that if the sign is built on Washington Street, no additional
permanent signs will be allowed on Eisenhower Drive.
Commissioners son/Marrs moved seconded a mot'/approveMinutes of J 27, 1993 as submitt nanimously ap vOTHER -
A. Jeff Petrus stated ' concern that the oblem with ted a solution and builder could of d to build the lar
10
ATTACHMENT 8
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
the Board regard' a lack of information on th ings, Mr. Garland
asked that d continue his project to ext Design Review Bo
meet' give him time to prepare AOeruate drawings.
Planning Commissioner ardmember Rice mov d seconded a
motion to continue itional Use Permit 93-008 Variance 93-023
to October 6, 1 Unanimously approved.
fsfgn Application 93-2156 Laguna de ]a Paz Subdivision; a request for approval
of a permanent monument sign on Washington Street north of Eisenhower Drive.
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. It was noted that Boardmember Anderson
submitted written comments.
2. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern that the plans were distributed
to the Board without complete information showing the details they need
to make a decision on the project.
3. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant, explained the sign lettering to
the Board. Boardmembers asked questions concerning the lettering,
colors, and manner in which the letters would be attached and the way the
edges would be finished. Mr. Petrus stated the letters would be made of
baked aluminum (painted teal) in a teal color, and would be attached flat
to the slumpstone and the edges would be capped similar to the perimeter
block wall with a radius edge.
4. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Petrus to explain why he wanted to sand
the slumpstone and eliminate the effect of the slumpstone. Mr. Petrus
stated only the area where the letters would be mounted would be sanded
so the letters would lay flat against the stone.
5. Boardmember Wright stated his confusion regarding the dimensions of the
drawing submitted. He questioned how large the sign was and from
where. Mr. Petrus stated it was five feet at its widest point and they
would build upon the footing (±20 square feet).
6. Boardmember Wright asked how many courses of slumpstone masonry
block would be used. Mr. Petrus stated there would be ten courses above
grade with the cap on top, and the widest part would be five feet wide.
DRB9-1
i
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
IV.
7. Boardmember Campbell stated he had no problem with the applicant's
intent, but reiterated that he was unable to respond to the sign with the
information on the drawing. Mr. Petrus stated he felt everything was
shown on his drawing except the manner in which the letters would be
attached. Discussion followed regarding an explanation of the drawing.
8. Chairman Curtis asked if Mr. Petrus was going to build the sign as it was
drawn on the drawings. Mr. Petrus stated he would build the sign
according to Code as he felt the drawings showed. Members stated they
understood what the applicant intended to do, but they did not have the
working drawings to approve. Boardmember Rice stated he would have
no objection to approving the sign if the applicant would submit a
complete drawing to staff. Discussion followed with Mr. Petrus regarding
the applicant's intent for the project.
9. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Rice and seconded
by Planning Commissioner Abels to approve Sign Application 93-213 as
submitted with the condition that the applicant submit a complete set of
drawings to staff before a building permit is issued. Unanimously
approved.
Chairman CuOK asked if there were any
Boardme Harbison asked that on
Chang can
and on Page 10,
"...t Own onto the trees and large h
m and seconded by Boardm ers
rrected. Unanimously appr
V. - OTHER
DR89-1
corn ons to the Minutes of August , 1993.
P 5, paragraph 10 the word " 'ty" be
graph 5 add the words 'to be" a sentence
rs...". There being no furthe rrections it was
Harbison/Campbell to a ove the Minutes as
/bworked
s asked if there were any r matters to discuss. ember
ted his concern that staff that complete drawings presented
ard for reZ
h sked if there was not a c ist given to
ants wher applications. Staff stat at this list was
rked on n Review Board and atwent there was no
Staff hthis information befo a Board at their next
Discussigarding what inf ation the Board wanted to
e problein keeping thei0foJects moving forward.
3
1. r, C G t.
BI #3
DATE:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
GENERAL
LOCATION:
ARCHITECT:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECEMBER 15, 1993 (SPECIAL MEETING)
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PHASE VII OF THE
LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS TRACT 23269 - LA QUINTA DEL REY
MR. JIMMY R. CROWELL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT - CENTURY
CROWELL COMMUNITIES (A. K.A. CENTURY HOMES)
CUSTOM LOTS (LOTS 70-72, 166-173, 175, 177-181, 185 & 234-
244) AND LOTS 70-72 (BETTY WILLIAMS AREA)
SANITA DRIVE, VILLETA DRIVE, LA PALMA DRIVE, AND
ESTELO COURT
BENJAMIN AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING)
One month ago the applicant's plans were to be reviewed by the Design Review
Board. However, on November 2, 1993, the City Council enacted Urgency
Ordinance 236 which established new development regulations for R-1 zoned
subdivisions which are partly developed and new developers decided to proceed with
different production houses (e.g. size, type and/or style). The maximum allowed
deviation in unit size(s) is 10 percent. The applicant had to meet the provisions of
Ordinance 236, therefore, his project was continued for further revisions
(Attachment 6). The ordinance was to expire on December 16, 1993, but on
December 7, 1993, the City Council extended the ordinance for ten months and
fifteen days. The newly adopted ordinance is now Ordinance 240.
Tract Information
The La Quinta Highlands tract was subdivided in 1988 by Triad Development
Company. The subdivision includes approximately 255 lots on +72 acres. The map
was recorded in 1989 and since that time various builders have constructed homes
within the subdivision. Those developers include:
La Quinta Highlands built +45 homes at the northerly (central) portion of the
tract with units which ranged in size from 1,220 square feet (3 bedroom + 2
bath) to 1,840 square feet (4 bedroom + 2 1/2 bath).
La Quinta Vistas built +46 homes at the northwest side of the tract with units
which ranged in size from 1,609 to +2,300 square feet.
DRB.010
021
Williams Development Company built +22 homes at the northeast side of the
tract with units which ranged in size from 1,470 (3 bedroom+ 2 bath) to 1,818
square feet (4 bedroom + 3 bath) .
Century Homes has recently received Design Review Board, Planning
Commission, and City Council approval to complete 22 single family homes in
this area with their Plan 3, 4, and 5 units (Phase VI). The units ranged in
size from 1,606 square feet to 2,010 square feet. The 2,010 square foot home
was later reduced to 1,995 square feet as required by Ordinance 236.
Century Homes built +76 homes at the southeasterly side of the tract with
units which ranged in size from 1,006 square feet (2 bedroom + 1 bath) to
1,678 square feet (3 bedroom + 3 bath) (Phases I, III, and V).
Individual Custom Lots consist of +33 lots at the southwesterly side of the
tract. Currently a majority of the area is vacant; however, there are a few
one story single family homes which are 2,010 square feet to +2,700 square
feet.
Century Homes Background
Century Homes purchased 76 lots in 1991 and received Planning Commission approval
on October 8, 1991, for four unit types to be built within Phases I, III, and V (Lots
79-94, 96-148, 245-251). The Plans 1-4 ranged in size from 1,006 square feet to
1,567 square feet excluding bonus room expansions. A larger fifth unit for Phase
V, Plan 5 (1,678 square feet with a 3-car garage) was approved by the Planning
Commission on January 12, 1993. Since their approval, they have built all 76 homes
and all units have sold. Their existing models are on Las Vistas Drive and Sanita
Drive and their existing homes are on La Palma Drive and Sanita Drive to the west
of the Palm Royale Park (+5 acres) at Arosa Way and La Palma Drive.
Their Phase VI project (22 homes) is under construction and 17 units have been
sold. Phase VI is located at the northeast side of the existing tract on Sanita Way
and Villeta Drive. They received approval for this phase in 1993.
New Request (Phase VII)
Century Homes has purchased most of the remaining vacant lots in the custom lot
area and three lots across the street from the existing Palm Royale Park which were
not built on in the early 1990's . Century Homes has purchased the remaining 29 lots
(Phase VII) with the intention of building part of their product line that they had
previous approval to build in Phases I, III, V, and VI. A copy of their building
schedule is attached. The La Quinta Highlands project will be completed once these
remaining lots are developed. Their minimum house size for this phase is 1,606
square feet and the largest house is 2,467 square feet. The developer is planning
to use his three largest plans for Phase VII with each unit including a two car
garage.
DRB.010
L
Building Schedule
Plan # Square Footage Stories Bedrooms
3 3 1,606 1 4
4 8 1,818 2 4
5 12 2,010 1 4
5L 6 2,467 2 5
29
Note: (1) All homes have 2-car garages.
(2) The square footage totals include garage conversions to livable or
habitable rooms.
New Model Design (5L)
The applicant has submitted a new design for his Plan 5 unit. The unit is called the
5L and the "L" stands for loft. The second story loft is +373 square feet. See the
attached exhibit stamp dated December 6, 1993. The loft is located over the master
bath and living room areas at the middle, rear section of the home. A total of six of
the Plan 5L homes are proposed.
Plan 4 Modification
The large set of plans (dated October 22, 1993) reflect the applicant's initial
submittal which has 1,567 square feet with a 3-car garage or 1,732 square feet with
a 2-car garage. This plan was approved by the Design Review Board for Phase VI
on October 6, 1993. This plan cannot be used in Phase VII because of the City's
existing Urgency Ordinance requirements. In order to conform with Ordinance 240,
the applicant has submitted a new Plan 4 (The Del Rey) which contains 1,818 square
feet with a 2-car garage. The applicant believes that the new "Del Rey" plan is
consistent with their previously approved Plan 4 unit. The applicant will bring the
large exhibits of this plan to the meeting.
Architecture
A Spanish/contemporary architectural style is proposed which is similar to the
abutting character of the neighborhood. The color scheme will have seven different
combinations using two different tile colors, red/brown with a spatter of grey and
brown with a spatter of golden yellow. Five different alternate colors (brown,
beige, and off-white) are being proposed for fascia and garage doors. Seven
alternate stucco colors are also being proposed (all desert shades). Seven accent
colors including muted greens, blues, and browns are also indicated. Each plan has
two or three different street elevations.
The Phase VII homes are all one story except for the Plan 4 and Plan 5L designs
which are two story plans. Fourteen two story units are plotted throughout the area
(+48 0 of the total units) .
DRB.010
U1t
Previous Design Review Board Action (Phase VI)
On October 6, 1993, the Century Homes' application request for Phase VI was
considered by the Design Review Board. Mr. Pavelak, representing Century Homes,
explained the predicament they were in concerning their building plan check and the
fact that they could not be issued a building permit until the Planning Commission
recertified their plans for their new phase. He also explained their past marketing
program. He explained that his company was aware of the Forecast (Quinterra tract)
application and he said his company was not proposing homes which are not
compatible with the existing one and two story homes around Phase VI. He stated
that their homes have been selling well here in La Quints, and Indio and that some of
the larger builders in La Quinta have gone out of business trying to build homes
larger than 2,000 square feet (e.g., Windsor, Topaz, Williams Development
Company, Lake La Quints, etc.). He reiterated that they are ready to begin
construction as soon as they can receive approval by the City.
The Design Review Board recommended approval of the project because the units are
compatible with abutting single family homes. The Board conditioned the project to
have 18 inch roof eaves and that the developer meet the State's Title 24 Energy
requirements (S.E.E.R. value of 10.0 or better) for air conditioning condensers.
The Planning Commission approved the project on October 26, 1993. The applicant
acquired his building permits on October 27, 1993, and began construction on
November 22, 1993.
Tract Issues
In September, 1993, staff received a petition from the La Quinta Vistas residents
during the Forecast Homes application stating that they desired to be notified when
a future builder was planning to build in this area. Staff will notify the residents
of the future Planning Commission meeting.
Effect of Ordinance 240
The minimum size home size the applicant can build in the custom lot area is +1, 811
square feet and the maximum size is 3,022 square feet based on the 10% deviation
standard of Ordinance 240. The applicant's plans are to build 1,818 square feet to
2,467 square feet which is consistent with the interim zoning standards.
The three lots which are across the street from the Palm Royale Park (La Palma Drive
at Adams Street) are in the Betty Williams area and the existing single family homes
range,in size from 1,470 square feet to 1,818 square feet. Therefore, based on
Ordinance 240 the minimum house size is 1,323 square feet and the largest house
which can be built is 1,997 square feet. The developer proposes three #3 plans
(1,606 square feet).
CONCLUSION:
The existing homes within the immediate area were developed by various builders.
The homes range in size from 1,470 square feet to +2, 700 square feet which is similar
to the submittal of Century Homes. The only exception is the existing custom homes
have three car garages, metal garage doors, and masonry walls. One existing home,
Lot 174, has converted the single car bay of the 3-car garage into livable area. This
DRH.010
�2C
unit now has a 2-car garage. The Century Homes will have two car garages.
The existing tract conditions require all homes to be a minimum livable area of 1,000
square feet and all two story homes not exceeding 24 feet in overall height. The
attached plans meet these minimum requirements. The applicant's plans also meet
the R-1 Zoning requirements.
The Century plans are compatible and consistent with the existing homes
surrounding Phase VII provided the attached conditions labeled Exhibit "A" are
imposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Design Review Board recommend approval to the Planning Commission of the
architectural plans for Century Homes in Phase VII of Tract 23269 (La Quinta
Highlands), subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit A).
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Phase VII Map
3. House Size Survey
4. Developer Map (TT 23269)
5. Draft conditions
6. Ordinance 236
7. Large plans (Design Review Board only)
DRD.O10
f;o,�
�I PROJECT
I SITE
MILES
TRACT
ATTACHMENT I
N
I
4
CL
0
VICINITY MAP
N. T. S.
I-
DRIVE
AVENUE
»I
0
Y
I
W �
Q W
S a
a 13341S SWVOV
ATTACHMENT 2
C
40
0
10
0
` � f
ATTACHMENT 3
• C O�
N O on
N Mr L
C r Y q
E O EqE O•
O O N G y
rl 0 1 N N aOM
4-- 4J 4�, o o q fr C
> aYr a+
O L `O
N L N V a 7 LAq +• 1r
N L V O L w E
r q U
V d v 4J q q C 7 4J C
C vN N 70) L. O� A oa Or S
O N G NNQ O V 'Z O+P 4J
N L Z G1 0
N rn 4J E L 01 0+ a ,•
02 co Sd CrC L 0/ €4J L 4J
O N g N q
S J N 4J 4JV Wr 7 01 07 C
q aN NNC ^O C X VOi Ql
O�41 L pOEE .r r 7 Q L •.r 01 V) V toU
C.'C" NS WW00 y C
t 4J 7 C 4J r-
i •r U N # O 4J
O x q
W J b 'X
• W C .
O
Or
• ♦ . • ♦ 40 is » n
CL
� �p !p �O
I IS
W _' •O " JYi vw,,,,--� �i'r t 40 �Q ��_ jOO • 4LJ
is
. Jn
ui 4J
» S6ZZ* _ -8891 ` ba [D 4J
..
r S6lZ W
N �
2 z LO£Z J 622 is : i� q
U
cx
s LO£Z r ,LO£Z ' sa,y c
I 609I LO£Z 889I�J^ �• • ti��1 l�F2 U
8891' 4 LO£Z J 889t t _ loft
LOUS6Zi 9891 6091
d 89t
1 88
LO£Z 889t^ ••
N
i •
•
..,,ti 091
'4,°
60
_
- •
N
L
r y
#
i •�•
�
SS2�22
r
N
q
cli
N N ' N
c
m
M �l
G
41
v
Og
ATTACHMENT 4
�206ri9ZJ(,2/6t�9�),S� dY7�
v�
v
�
�
O
a
O
I •' u s
\. Q
M1
11
N
h N M
h
.�
°a
Y
w
♦ w O �
`
�
r
w
N
0
E7
A
b
Q
�OI�\
8
a
X
w .
w C
C\
14 n
k
C
g
sl
_
z
_.... _
h
N
4
X
p��
6MV
1
I
®
._I
`
1
^t
O_
au
N n"
E�+�
S c C YI
11 p1 y N
C Y > W
N 61 S WE
0 cc
O S
J c c E
0 4j ► Z
jam% 7+•]
M NO-C
N r , C
7 a a, Go
UJ3V
y N a W++ (.l9 986/J
� s G '2o9'a 1 � (.02 r99) �i/�• l�lC'
ATTACHMENT 5
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
CENTURY HOMES (PHASE VII)
DECEMBER 15, 1993
1. 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.
2. The landscaping for each lot shall include one 24"-box tree and one 15-gallon
tree on interior lots and one (24"-box) tree and four (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.
3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas
required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 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.
5. The standards of the R-1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, fencing, etc.) .
6. The concrete roof tile in Phase VII shall be similar in color and style to the
abutting homes.
7. The minimum roof eave shall be 18-inches.
8. Sectional metal roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garages.
9. The minimum dwelling unit size within Phase VII (custom lot area) shall be
1,818 square feet excluding the two car garage.
10. The developer shall meet the minimum Title 24 State requirements for energy
efficiency during plan check (e.g. 10 SEER or larger for the condensing
unit) .
11. All requirements of Tract Map 23269 shall be met during plan check.
12. The applicant shall provide masonry block walls for all new homes in the
custom lot area prior to final occupancy clearance of each dwelling unit.
13. No two story homes shall be built next door to any existing one story home.
14. The requirements of Ordinance 240 shall be met.
coanrxvL.007
113f'
(JLj,) :LZ�6
SECTION 1. That a Section 9.32.020 G be added to Title 9, Chapter 9.32 of the
La Quinta Municipal Code and to read as follows:
"No building permit, design approval or subdivision
amendment shall be granted to construct a unit in a
residential subdivision where some portion of the
subdivision has previously been constructed and the
square footage of the unit to be constructed will
deviate more than ten percent (10%) from the
square footage of that portion of tTte subdivision
previously constructed.
SECTION 2. This Chapter 9.32.020 shall expire and be of no further force and
effect on December 16, 1993, but may be extended pursuant to the procedure set forth in
California Government Code Section 65858(a).
SECTION 3. This Interim Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation
of the public health, safety, and welfare, and therefore it is hereby declared that this is an
urgency ordinance which shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
interim ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three public places in the City of La
Quinta, and the same shall be in full force and effect immediately after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, on this a- day of 4 , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
I-2---7 (9.'Z D Z4(--)
JOHN J. PENA, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTACHMENT 6
ORDDRFT.039
!I 'it
EMBERS OF THE:
PLANNING COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMITTEE
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1993
SUBJECT: DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Design Review Board at its meeting of December 1, 1993, asked staff to work with Board
Member Campbell to put together a draft document that the Board could review as Design
Guidelines. This memo is transmitting that report prepared by Board Member Campbell.
This document represents an attempt to collate/generate information in order to eventually
publish a manual comprehensively outlining Design Guidelines dealing with all aspects of
commercial construction in our fair City.
The guidelines for the El Pueblo Viejo, Santa Barbara, which were provided to the Design
Review Board earlier this month, and which 'seemed pleasing to all, took six years to finalize!
Obviously, we will not be afforded this luxury, although we anticipate that the effort will take
six to ten months.
In order to try and streamline the process, we have started off by listing the categories that we
think are important, with brief editorial comment on some. Feel free to add any that you think
should be covered.
If you are interested in participating in this undertaking, please fill out the questionnaire at the
top of the page and attach any comments and observations to this document and return to the
Planning and Development Department. Also, since we intend for this publication to be heavy
on pictorial examples, if you have some amazing photographs, please share them with us.
At this moment we don't need extensive treatise, but rather, a general outline of your position.
Hand-written notes, unless written in the dark, will be welcomed.
At this moment we have a list of required drawings, plus a brief overview of the direction we
thought should take back in June of this year (see attached).
DRBDOC.001 1
�3d
DRAFT
CITY OF LA QUINTA
DESIGN GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
>bit
K
An introduction to the City, it's history, it's goals, and opportunities. (Could be taken from the
Chamber of Commerce blurbs.)
An overview of minimum design standards and basic design philosophy of the reviewing bodies,
i.e., The City of La Quinta requires that the design of the development be one in which it's
citizens will have great pride, both today and in the future, and where fidelity to the architectural
style is paramount (Spanish revival shall have deep fenestrations, generous eaves, decorative tile
work, ornamentation, decorative paving, signage appropriate to the architecture, imaginative
landscaping with emphasis on seasonal color in selected public spaces, etc."
It should be emphasized that there is a wealth of design vernacular sympathetic to the desert
lifestyle (Spanish, Moroccan, Islamic, Santa Fe, etc.) and that a variety of approaches would be
desirable in order to fully enrich the architectural fabric of the community.
Attention to detail should be required so that each development profits from the richness of it's
ornamentation and it's gesture to the community, rather than looking like another indifferent
product of the Pillsbury Doughboy's imagination. Signage plays a vital part in enhancing or
degenerating a project. The City needs to upgrade its signage code to discourage and preferably
prohibit internally illuminated plastic letters with jewelite trim caps (the lowest common
denominator in the sign industry). Signage should be the most beautiful form of ornamentation
on any given building, and it has an unlimited menu of materials and fabrication techniques.
Energy conservation: The city should develop it's own requirements that exceed the present
Title 24 language, with examples of how these requirements could be met (deeply recessed
windows, awnings, canopies, etc., versus reflective glass).
Landscaping: A simple preamble outlining the approach desired with emphasis on creating
special pockets of horticultural "magic" in a portion of the public spaces (e.g., La Quinta Hotel).
DRBDOC.001 2
n33
Amenities: Great emphasis needs to be made in regards to the amenities that the developer
needs to provide on any commercial project accessible by the public, whether these be fountains,
seating, paving, etc. (An ornate and extravagant weather vane can do more than win the
public's loyalty than 20 coats of beige paint will ever do - Waring Plaza in Rancho Mirage has
gone to extraordinary lengths to create an interesting atmosphere in an otherwise mundane type
of development.)
Lighting: A comprehensive lighting criteria emphasizing decorative uplighting of perimeter
landscaping, minimum foot-candle requirements at all public areas, acceptable light sources,
maximum height of light standards, etc.
Material: A list of unacceptable materials and finishes (anodized aluminum, lace texture stucco,
imitation or simulated materials, etc.).
SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES:
I would recommend that all larger projects be required to go through two different phases in the
review process:
1-Preliminary Design: To determine if design direction pursued by the applicant is compatible
with La Quinta's design philosophy and standards. A list of required materials should be
developed for this phase (site plan, floor, roof plan, elevations, building sections, all
appropriately dimensioned, plus a color and materials schedule, landscaping plan, etc.). Should
the applicant not provide all the information required, could slow or stop the review process by
the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
The applicant should provide a set of reproducibles upon which the Board/Commission's
comments and/or changes would be noted and would have to be signed by the respective
chairpersons to signify approval or rejection of the submittal. (Not comfortable with the present
system that depends on memory primarily to record members findings and also having the
Board/Commission pass judgement on major projects during one session.
2-Construction Documents: These documents should show complete dimensions, details,
materials, color, signage, hardscape, softscape, amenities, cuts of all light fixtures, seating
elements, planters, etc. Submission to be signed by respective chairpersons to signify approval.
k t - -B` t ♦s-"T. 4. fv
DRBDOC.001 3
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES:
Verbiage on architectural/design do's and don'ts.
Sub -categories to be used include:
A.
Site Considerations/Planning
B.
Architecture Character
C.
Volumes
D.
Surfaces
E.
Roofs
F.
Colors
G.
Paving
H.
Amenities
I.
Arcades/Loggias
J.
Openings
K.
Ornament
L.
Awnings/Canopies
DRBDOC.001
4
n 3,-
LANDSCAPING:
Verbiage and subcategories to be used:
A. Entries
B. Buildings
C. Focal Point
D. Amenities (seating, planters, trash receptacles, etc.)
E. Lighting
F. Walkways/Paving
G. Maintenance: (we need strong incentives to ensure that all elements of
development be well maintained. Refer to Santa Barbara's El
Pueblo Viejo guidelines, page 30, Article 22.22.180) Why is the
landscaping around the new City Hall full of weeds and dead plant
material? It sends out a very strong message!
H. List of landscaping materials
DRBDOC.001
5
03Or"
SIGNAGE:
Verbiage outlining the critical need for good design, undertaken by professionals in the Graphic
Design field (versus a draftsman toiling in the backroom of a sign fabricating company) who
understands architecture and the importance of integrating signage into a project.
Criteria should grudgingly allow internally illuminated signs for retail developments only with
commercial concerns having externally illuminated signs exclusively.
Subcategories that should be included:
A.
Signs
B.
Materials
C.
Illumination
D.
Blade signs
E.
Sizes
7R ` •.a.k h6' 6I -
DRBDOC.001
9
03
LIGHTING:
Verbiage regarding the "Dark Sky" Ordinance should be included as well as the following
subcategories:
A. Buildings
B. Landscaping
C. Features
D. Parking (would recommend high pressure sodium as City standards.)
DRBDOC.001
7
1
FINE ARTS PROGRAM:
We, as a City should require that all development should provide 1 % of it's construction costs
for the promotion of art. Said art should benefit all members of the community and be of a type
that inspires and delights the populace. (Recall the excellent lecture given by Jerry Allen earlier
this year.)
Verbiage describing City standards should be included and the following subcategories:
A. Attached to buildings
B. Groundplane
C. Inter -active
nem PWW16 +t womt ta *@ t►t aft:
DRBDOC.001
ENERGY CONSERVATION:
Verbiage outlining City's requirements that are more restrictive than Title 24 and the following
subcategories:
A. Insulation
B. Shading Devices
C. Glazing
DRBDoc.00i
1.
04r
k7-, 7 e:1 7 t:= 1 , >e,-
MATERIALS:
A list of unacceptable materials.
SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES:
Description of the type of documentation required for the review process, etc.
DRBDOC.001
10
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
25 sets of the following plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department,
unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be folded to 8'h" X I I" unless colored.
Plans shall include at a minimum the following items at the time of submittal:
1. Plot Plan: A plot plan drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, that shows the following:
A. Property line boundaries with dimensions.
B. Proposed buildings, structures, driveways, parking areas, service areas (including
trash areas), freestanding signs, utilities (proposed and existing), public art,
drainage structures, landscaping and hardscape areas, easements, etc.
C. Existing improvements and natural features which are proposed to be retained and
incorporated into the project.
D. Included on this plan shall be a vicinity map and project area size, building
square footage, hardscape (parking areas and walks) square footage, and
landscape square footage tabulations.
E. Shown on the plot plan shall be adjacent development within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the property. This includes curb cuts across all streets as
well as on adjacent properties.
DOCSS.011
1
2. Grading Plan: A preliminary grading plan, showing proposed pad, adjacent street,
parking lot, driveway, landscape, elevations, drainage patterns, dry wells, retention
areas, etc. Included shall be grade elevations for adjacent existing streets, and for
adjacent properties and buildings within 200 feet of the subject property.
3. Topography Plan: A plan showing the existing topography on the subject property. This
may be combined with the above preliminary grading plan (#2) if it can be shown
clearly.
4. Building Plans: Complete preliminary building plans shall be submitted as follows:
A. Fully dimensioned floor plans shall indicate all rooms including mechanical
rooms, vertical transportation, exit/service corridors, service areas, lobbies,
location of air conditioning condensers (even if located outside exterior walls),
etc.
B. Roof plans indicating pitch, line of exterior wall, roof mounted mechanical
equipment, skylights, solar panels, trellis areas, columns, etc.
C. Elevation or exterior view of all sides of all buildings and structures, including
DOCSS-011
interior courtyards, atriums, hidden exterior walls, etc. Heights of buildings, at
maximum points, and other relevant heights shall be dimensioned and shown on
2
plans. Elevations shall indicate sign designs and locations or probable locations
and sizes of sign "envelopes", when appropriate. Elevation plans shall indicate
exterior material and finishes and be keyed to material sample boards.
D. A minimum of two section views through building(s) at a scale of 1/2" = V-0"
showing eave overhangs, fenestrations, entrys, architectural projections, window
areas, etc.
Photographs
5. One set of subject property photographs (minimum 5" X 7") and surrounding
development shall be submitted as following:
A. One panoramic view of each side of the site.
B. Views of all relevant or unusual features of the site.
C. Views of all existing development on adjacent properties. Picture shall include
front elevation of development on adjacent properties.
6. Landscaping Plans: Fully annotated preliminary landscaping plan showing proposed
species, container sizes, spacing where appropriate (i.e., ground cover, annual flowers),
hardscape paving patterns and materials, site furnishings, etc.
DOCSS. 011
3
r .
n4c
Type of irrigation system (spray, emitter, and/or drip) shall be called out on plan.
Where more than one type is used, plan shall be provided indicating where each type is
used. Photographs of major plant species utilized, amenities and site furnishings shall
be submitted.
7. Sample Board: A material sample board showing all exterior materials, finishes, and
colors including hardscape (when decorative), shall be submitted on a maximum 9" X
13" heavily weighted cardboard. Materials, finishes, and colors shall be keyed to
elevation plans. For materials such as roof tile, decorative file and trim, etc.,
photographs of said material in the field clearly showing textures shall be submitted.
NO Incomplete submittals will not be accepted, nor will processing of plans through
DOCSS. 011
the Design Review Board process begin.
0
0�7
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
December 15, 1993
I. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 P.M.
A. Vice Chairman Campbell brought the meeting to order at 5:33 P.M. and Board
Member Rice led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Board Members Fred Rice, David Harbison, Randall Wright, Paul
Anderson, Planning Commissioner Marrs, and Vice Chairman Campbell.
B. Vice Chairman Campbell asked for a motion to excuse Chairman Cutis and Board
Members Harbison/Wright moved and seconded the motion. It carried
unanimously.
C. Staff present: Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman, Principal
Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand-
Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. BUSINESS SESSION
Vice Chairman Campbell stated he had a possible conflict of interest, turned the meeting over
the Board Member Harbison, and withdrew from the meeting.
A. Sin Application 93-235; a request of Palm Royale Country Club/Mr. Dave
Evans for approval of a permanent freestanding monument sign to be placed near
the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street.
DRB12-15
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. Board Member Rice asked if the lighting on the sign would be side
lighting. Staff stated it called for ground spot lighting.
1
0j,r,
Design Review Board Minutes
December 15, 1993
3. Board Member Harbison asked if the sign was wood with lucite letters.
Staff explained the sign was wood with reverse vinyl letters with the
lettering inlaid into the lucite. Discussion followed regarding the letters
and the shrubbery to be used.
4. Board Member Anderson asked the applicant to explain what reverse vinyl
lettering was. Mrs. Millington, the applicant's representative, explained
that the letters were mounted behind the lucite. Board Member Anderson
asked if anything could get behind the lucite panel. Mrs. Millington
stated she had been told by her contractor that nothing could penetrate the
lucite as it would be sealed. Board Member Anderson stated he would
like to see a cap added to the sign.
5. Board Member Wright asked what the column material would consist of.
The applicant stated it would be concrete.
6. Planning Commissioner Marrs asked if the lights would cause a glare on
the lucite. The applicant stated the angle would be such that it would not.
7. Board Member Anderson stated his concern about the lucite material. The
applicant stated lucite was the wrong word that it was actually Plexiglas
and there would be no shine as it has a matt finish. Board Member
Anderson asked if the applicant had considered another material.
Discussion followed regarding the material to be used.
8. Board Member Harbison asked if the existing landscape irrigation had
been modified so no direct water would hit the sign. The applicant stated
they had re -arranged the system to be sure it would not.
9. Board Member Wright asked if this permanent sign would eliminate all
the banners, etc., that had been used in the past. The applicant stated no
other signs would be used if this sign was approved. Staff clarified for
the Board the size of the proposed sign.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Board
Members Anderson/Rice to recommend approval of Sign Application 93-
235 to the Planning Commission with the stipulation that the sign would
be sealed and capped. Unanimously approved with Vice Chairman
Campbell abstaining.
Vice Chairman Campbell rejoined the meeting.
DRB12-15
Design Review Board Minutes
December 15, 1993
B. Sign Application 93-215 Amendment #1 - Laguna de la Paz: a request of Mr.
Roger Snellenberger for approval to amend and relocate the previously approved
permanent monument sign for the existing residential development on the west
side of Washington Street, north of Eisenhower Drive.
DRB12-15
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. Commissioner Marrs asked if it could be determined how wide the letters
would be from the street. Board Member Anderson stated that holding the
letters away from the face of the sign would give a three dimensional
look. Discussion followed regarding the existing sign and how the letters
would be mounted.
3. Board Member Anderson stated his concern for the size of the sign. He
felt it needed something at the end of the wall to give an anchor and/or
dimension to the sign. He felt there needed to be a base "step-up" to the
sign base (a concept sketch was submitted to staff for review). He also
felt uplighting to accentuate this proposal would be acceptable.
4. Board Member Wright asked what happened where the wall stops.
Discussion followed with staff as to the property to the north should it
develop and what would happen to the sign. Board Member Wright felt
there should be some type of transition for the new builder. Staff stated
that in the past the Engineering Department has discussed extending 48th
Avenue, west along this area. Members continued to discuss the existing
wall.
5. Board Member Wright stated his concern that the sign appeared to be out
of balance. Board Member Rice stated the logo gives the appearance of
being out of balance. Members discussed different arrangements of the
words on the sign.
6. Board Member Anderson suggested the line be extended and center "de
la Paz" on the second line. He felt a sculpture element (e.g., logo)
needed to be added with the addition of a light feature and submitted a
suggested design to staff. Discussion followed regarding the added
expense this could put on the applicant.
7. Planning Commissioner Marrs asked if there were any objections to the
sign as it was proposed. Board Member Anderson stated he did object as
it appeared to be a sign stuck on a wall.
3
1 ,.
M
Design Review Board Minutes
December 15, 1993
8. Staff read into the record Chairman Curtis' comments that he approved
the project with staff's recommendations.
9. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Board Members
Anderson/Wright to recommend denial to the Planning Commission of
Sign Application 93-215, Amendment #1, as submitted but provide the
applicant with some direction regarding adding more detail to the sign and
ask the applicant to resubmit the sign.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Board Members Anderson,
Harbison, Wright, Vice Chairman
Campbell. NOES: Board Members Rice,
Planning Commissioner Marrs. ABSENT:
Chairman Curtis. ABSTAIN: None.
C. Architectural Approval; a request of Mr. Jimmy R. Crowell, Century Homes for
approval of architectural plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta Highlands Tract
23269 - La Quinta Del Rey.
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. Vice Chairman Campbell asked if Condition #12 pertained to the
perimeter wall and shouldn't that be stated in the condition. Staff stated
it did pertain to the perimeter wall and they would add it to the condition.
3. Mr. Crowell, the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a description
of the project and stated he is working with the property owners in the
area so that they would support his project once it went to the Planning
Commission.
4. Vice Chairman Campbell asked why he was intending to change the
architectural drawings (e.g., Plans 4 and 5L). Mr. Crowell stated he
intended to do this during the appeal period as it was costly in addition to
the change of the unit mix which occurred because of Ordinances 236 and
240.
5. Vice Chairman Campbell asked if the applicant had any objections to the
condition requiring the extension of the eaves. Mr. Crowell stated he had
no objections. Board Member Wright stated the drawings did not show
the eaves being extended and the air conditioning S.E.E.R. rating was not
shown to be 10.0. Mr. Crowell stated he would comply with these
requirements during plan check.
4 ..
DRB12-15 4
CZ
Design Review Board Minutes
December 15, 1993
6. Board Member Anderson asked if the applicant intended to use dormer
vents as they would help to break up the roof and enhance the quality of
light in the main living space for Plan 5L. Mr. Crowell stated he had
already added it to the plans.
7. Board Member Anderson asked about Condition #6 (i.e., roof tile) if the
mix would be different. Mr. Crowell stated it would be the same.
8. There being no further questions, it was moved by Board Member
Anderson and seconded by Planning Commissioner Marrs to recommend
approval of the architectural plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta
Highlands Tract 23269, as conditioned. Unanimously approved.
D. Discussion of Develppment Standards
1. Staff informed the Board that Chairman Curtis had asked that the Board
continue this matter to the next Study Session in order to give everyone
time to assimilate the information.
2. Members discussed with staff different points of the standards and ways
in which to generate the most interest in the other Commissions and
Committee members.
3. Following the discussion it was decided to continue the matter to the next
study session and invite at least one member of the Planning Commission
and Art in Public Places Committee to attend and give their input.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded by Board Members Anderson/Rice to adjourn to a regular meeting
of the Design Review Board on January 5, 1994, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta
Design Review Board was adjourned at 6:56 P.M., December 15, 1993.
DRB12-15 5
nsv