Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-11 i t � �P MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEV{/ BOARD MEETING TUESDAY JANUARY 11, 1983 2:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS � � � � � � -� � � � � � � � � � � -� � � � -� -� � � -� � � � � � � � � � � � -� � � I. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. after a one hour study session. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vern Barton A1 Cook Ron Gregory Rick Holden Bernie Leung MEMBER ABSENT: Charlie Martin STAFF PRESENT: Ramon A. Diaz Stan Sawa Steve Smith Patricia Armitage II. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the minutes of the January 11, 1983, meeting were approved as written. Motion carried 3-0-2 with Mr. Gregory and Mr. Leung abstaining. III. CASES Final drawings or items not requiring planning commission confirmation: 1. CASE NO: 155 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): B.P.S. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 3140 East Willow Street, Long Beach, CA 90806. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request for approval of final landscape plans for a hotel development. LOCATION: North side of Highway 111, 650 feet east of Deep Canyon. ZONE: PC-4 and PR-5 Mr. Gregory indicated that he would approve the landscape plans on a minute motion although he did wish to make it clear that he felt the landscaping as selected would require extensive and costly maintenance, Mr. Holden seconded. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 2. CASE NO: 241 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAMES SATTLEY, 74-050 San Marino Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final working drawings for a one story, 3 unit apartment building. LOCATION: Southwest corner of San Pablo and Royal Palm ZONE: R-2 (5) and R-3 S.P. Mr. Diaz indicated that the board had reviewed the final working drawings at the study session and felt they were acceptable subject to conditions listed in the motion below. On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Leung the final working - 1 - , � � � DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1983 CASE NO. 241 MF (CONTINUED) drawings were approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The towers shall be moved on the garage as originally approved or shall be deleted entirely. 2. Landscape plans shall be resubmitted and the following considerations shall be evaluated: A. The size and number of shrubs shall be increased. . B. The lawn on the north side, adjacent to the building shall be removed and replaced with groundcover tolerant to extended periods of shade. C. Additional trees shall be added to the north yard. D. Landscape plan shall be more creative. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1. CASE NO: 62 C (Amendment) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JAMES L. FOX, 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Exterior modification of unit in existing building. LOCATION: 73-111 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith indicated that this application was for the exterior modification of the Aida Grey store in the Galleria building involving a new entry, pop-out glass windows for display purposes and a canopy extending out to the curbline (which had received the approval of the director of public works). The board wished to know what the material for the canopy would be. Mr. James L. Fox was present and indicated that the material would be a good quality color impregnated canvas. The frame itself would be a dark metal and the posts would be in a metal color. Mr. Holden asked if the actual color had been selected yet and if it had not, if the applicant would mind submitting a sample of what the actual color would be. The applicant indicated that the color had not been selected but they would be more than happy to comply. Mr. Cook asked if the awning would be a single prefabricated piece placed over the frame. Mr. Fox replied that it would be a one piece unit placed over the frame. The posts will be plated the same color tone to tie in with the other metal of the rest of the store. 'fhe doors will be hirculite doors with patch hinges and the hinges will be plated to be the same metal as the post. - 2 - , � � � DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1983 CASE NO. 62 C (AMENDMENT) (CONTINUED) The board indicated that it would prefer squared frame tubing and then inquired as to how far the awning would extend. Mr. Smith replied that the awning face would extend to the back of the curb with the two support posts located in the center of the cut- outs. On a motion by Mr. Cook seconded by Mr. Leung the concept was approved subject to final approval based on samples submitted and subject to the poles being square tubing for supports of the awning. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 2. CASE NO: 239 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUNRISE COMPANY, 41-500 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGH'T: Appeal of Condition No. 1 of the meeting of December 28, 1983 listed below). LOCATION: South side of Country Club Drive between Portola and Cook. ZONE: PR-4 Mr. Smith indicated that the Sunrise Company was appealing Condition No. 1. which indicates that "the fascia shall be moved 90� instead of at an angle to the roof line. Mr. Keary Gregg, representing the architectural firm of Robert Altevers and Sunrise Company, stated that the nature of the project is intended to blend in and be related to future developments in the immediate vicinity of the undeveloped site. The angle of the soffit relates to design elements of buildings that are in the process of being designed. The flat roof also relates to the future nature of this project, it will be a contemporary design and the angle will relate to future batters and other portions of the project. It is designed for ultimate compatibility with the design of the project. Mr. Holden asked if he was correct in assuming that what Mr. Gregg was saying was that it would relate to the rest of the design, then the rest of the design does not relate to the clubhouse. Mr. Gregg replied that it does not relate to the corporate office project or The Lakes Country Club Project. It is more contemporary. Mr. Diaz indicated that it was not an extension of The Lakes Country Club it will eventually be part of a separate project. The plan previously approved on that side of Cook Street will probably not be built. - 3 - . � � � DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1983 CASE NO. 239 MF (CONTINUED): Mr. Holden indicated that when the board had initially looked at the plans, the reason for not approving the angle of the soffit was that it did not relate to anything else. Mr. Gregg indicated that in other design concepts for this site they have a soffitted roof which extends out and there are different elements of the building design that have that angle which continues around. He added that unfortunately on this particular building it could not be an exact duplicate of what they were doing on other ones because of its size, but they did feel it was important to bring in some of the elements so that it blends in. Mr. Holden stated that he was led to beleive at the last meeting that the site was going to be completely walled off from the rest of the project and now they were being told that the project had been changed. Mr. Gregg indicated that they are studying a number of possibilities for the site. Sunrise is not prepared to commit publicly to any particular one at this time but the design concept would be pretty much the same. Mr. Cook felt that his reservation for this particular design was that it would need a gutter system around all of the building to keep the rain from running down the face of the fascia. It looked as though it sloped out eight inches past the roof. The gutter would have to be pretty good sized. Mr. Gregg replied that they would conceal the gutter behind the soffit at the top point of the batter element and where the low slope comes into it there will be a reveal to allow for a built in gutter. Mr. Holden indicated that they had approved the final working drawings which do not show this. Mr. Gregg indicated that he was aware of it and had talked to his project manager regarding this. It is something they are very concerned about. Mr. Leung indicated that his main concern was that the building was not interesting enough and that it was too close to the street. He felt the dish should be behind the building. Mr. Gregg responded that landscaping would screen the building. Mr. Cook reminded the board that this was already approved, the concern now was the fascia element. Mr. Holden made a motion that the request be denied, he felt that even if it is supposed to relate to future development, the other future development would not have truncated roofs, sections of roof missing, there would be more involved. Mr. Leung asked the chairman if his comments "that the building was too close to the street" had been related to the board since he was not present at the last meeting. Mr. Diaz replied that they had been. - 4 - ' ` � � DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1983 CASE NO. 239 MF (CONTINUED): Mr. Leung indicated that he would rather see a double row of trees along the east side of the dish antenna. Mr. Gregg reminded the board that it was a mechanical building and not much could be done to improve it and did intend to go through with the elements. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Gregg if they would be willing to move the building back some distance to save the fascia. Mr. Gregg replied that they could not move the building back. Mr. Gregory asked if more trees could be planted between the streets and the building. Mr. Gregg replied that he could not concede on that either. He was only able to present the case on the soffit only, any other changes would have to go directly to Sunrise Company. Mr. Gregory moved that the appeal be accepted leaving the soffit as drawn subject to the building being moved back 10 feet south from its present location, Mr. Cook seconded. Mr. Diaz stated that such a condition was unreasonable because the angle of the soffit had no correlation to the distance of the building from the street. Motion carried 4-1 (Mr. Holden voting nae). Mr. Gregg indicated that he did not feel that moving back the building would be acceptable to Sunrise Company, but if they couldn't get the angle on the fascia to relate to the rest of the project they would have to redesign it as required by the board at its December 28, 1982, meeting. Mr. Diaz stated that this decision was final unless appealed to the planning commission or city council. Mr. Gregg asked if they could proceed with the vertical design if they do not set the building back, without further presentations to the board. Mr. Diaz replied that they could proceed. IV. AD70URNMENT: On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ,-�'' �=��- -�=��Z ��-� STEVE SMITH,'� � Associate Planner /pa - 5 -