Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-11 MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 11, 1983 2:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER I. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 P.M. after a one hour study session. Members Present:Al Cook Ron Gregory Rick Holden Charlie Martin Member Absent: Bernie Leung Staff Present: Ramon A. Diaz Steve Smith Patricia Armitage On a motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Holden, the minutes of the September 27, 1983 meeting were approved as written. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. II. On a motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Martin, the following cases were approved by minute motion: 1. CASE NO: 193 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER, 3666 Kearny Villa Road, San Diego, CA 92123. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a car wash. LOCATION: East side of El Paseo north of the entrance to the Palm Desert Town Center. ZONE: PC (3), S.P. The final plans for the car wash were approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, with condition No. 1 being changed to read "That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the commission prior to issuance of a notice of completion". 2. CASE NO: 185 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COMET NEON & PLASTIC SIGNS, 611 Rock Springs Road, Escondido, CA 92025. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to a Nov, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1983 3. CASE NO: 197 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TEMPLE SINAI OF THE DESERT, c/o ELIAS GOLD 73-778 El Paseo, CA 92260 and GEORGE RITTER & ASSOCIATES, 73-899 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a religious facility. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, 350 feet north of Parkview. ZONE: PR-7, S.P. The preliminary plans for the 'religious facility were approved subject to the conditions in the staff report and the added condition that the sizes of the species shown on the landscape plan be increased. The minute motion on the cases listed above carried unanimously 4-0. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 869 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SWENSEN'S ICE CREAM, 73-403 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request to install a freestanding monument sign at the corner of Frontage Road and Lupine Lane. LOCATION: 73-403 Highway II I - SMITH FOOD KING ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating that this was a request to install a 13Y2 square foot sign on a six foot pedestal. He added that the code permits a free standing sign in a C-1 zone if it can be shown that the existing or proposed sign would be ineffective for a variety of reasons ranging from topography of the site to the location of the building. In this instance it was staff's feeling that the signage presently on the site was ineffective in that there are two buildings located between it and the street. Another factor being considered was that only one free standing sign is permitted per street footage and this would be the only free standing sign going on the Lupine Lane frontage for the center. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant had submitted plans signed by the owner's representative giving him the right to the signage. The applicant had also mailed notices to the other affected tenants (copies of which are included in the staff report); therefore, they had been made aware of this ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1983 CASE NO. 869 SA (CONTINUED): Mr. Michael Butcher the owner, stressed the need for a sign on that corner to make people aware of the fact that there is an ice cream parlor in that location. He hoped the sign would attract the people driving on Highway 111, particularly those going to the Palm Desert Town Center. Commissioner Holden stated that he understood the provision that a freestanding sign would be allowed but the commission should take into consideration that there are three or four tenants with the same condition who could justifiably say they have the same problem. He was also concerned that if it is allowed it would set a precedent for other tenants at all the other centers that do not have a monument sign. Regarding the 25 foot distance, Mr. Diaz indicated that this particular location becomes a problem because the code sets forth the 25 feet to be measured from the property line and because we have a larger than usual distance between the property line and the curb on Lupine Lane, the 25 feet becomes the problem for the applicant; however, that could be resolved by a variance. This monument sign could have up to forty square feet of signage so that if at a later date another tenant wishes to place his/her name on that sign then it could be added. Chairman Gregory asked what would happen if at a later date a situation comes up where another tenant decides that he/she wants and is entitled to a sign and they are told it has to be added to the existing sign. Mr. Diaz responded that they will be told that they can either take the square footage allowed for that sign (he noted that the square footage for the center had been taken up; therefore it could only be placed on this sign), or bring the sign back to the commission at which time the commission could require that the entire sign be redesigned. The purpose of the ordinance was not to put someone out of business or to worry about what might happen at a later date and he reiterated that the tenants who could be impacted had been contacted and were not present; therefore, it should be understood that they were not against the sign being considered at this meeting. Commissioner Martin suggested the applicant consider turning the sign 900, to increase the visibility of the sign on Lupine or from El Paseo. Mr. Butcher should also realize that a building might go up across the street. Mr. Butcher did not object to Commissioner Martin's suggestion. Mr. Diaz felt that if its design was acceptable then he felt the commission should approve it. The commission reviewed the colors to be used on the sign and recommended that the background be changed to ivory. On a motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Martin, the freestanding monument sign was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Resolution of the setback of the sign and its final location. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1983 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: 247 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): J & J INVESTORS, 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural approval of plans for a five unit residential condominium project. LOCATION: East side of San Rafael, south of Catalina. ZONE: R-2 Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating that the applicants propose to construct a five unit residential condominium project on a 22,284 square foot site located on the east side of San Rafael, 280 feet south of Catalina. He indicated that the site plan will be reviewed in greater detail by the planning commission in the precise plan process. Staff felt the landscape plan was acceptable although it was concerned over the extensive use of gravel. Regarding the elevations, staff felt they were not up to the standards required by the commission; therefore, would recommend that the commission send them back to be redesigned. Mr. James N. Ewart, 5873 Vista Del Fuente, Indian Wells, CA, indicated that he would like some input from the commissioners as to what they considered undesirable. He indicated that the buildings would not be viewed from the street, they will face the interior and are within perimeter walls. Driving down the street all that would be seen would be carports and the end of one unit. Commissioner Holden stated that buildings should be pleasing from every angle, the neighbors should be able to look at an attractive house. Commissioner Martin pointed out the minimal use of overhangs and indicated that on the east and west elevations any glassed area will pick up the morning sun. He felt it should not be approved based on the energy consumption and did not feel they were aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Cook agreed with Commissioners Martin and Holden. People living there should be able to enjoy a well designed building. He felt it needed a lot of restudy; basically, more overhangs are required for different orientations and something should be shown facing the street that would be more pleasing than two carports. Chairman Gregory felt the approach taken for the preliminary landscape study was fine but agreed that the gravel area was too extensive. He recommended that shrubbery be planted under the trees in the planter ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1983 CASE NO. 247 MF (CONTINUED): 1. All elevations. 2. Energy concern in design. 3. Reduction of gravel, replacing it with shrubbery and ground cover. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. MISCELLANEOUS ITEM: 1. CASE NO: 182 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAN PEDRO SIGN COMPANY, INC., 735 North Lakme Avenue, Wilmington, CA 90744 and SANDY BAUM, PROJECT COORDINATOR, P.O. Box 1739, Palm Desert, CA 92261. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a freestanding center identification sign. LOCATION: South side of Highway 111 at Larkspur. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith indicated that the commission had already approved the concept of the sign at its meeting of September 27, 1983, and had been concerned specifically with its location. Mr. Sandy Baum was present to represent the applicant and indicated that the owner of the center and the owner of the market had concurred that the sign being submitted was acceptable with the exception of the base. They proposed that it be stuccoed to match the building; that a band of paper tile would be added and that the electrical conduit that runs up the base would be removed. The commissioners reviewed the pictures of the sign distributed by Mr. Baum and felt it would be acceptable with the changes noted above. On a motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Holden, the sign was approved as built, subject to the addition of plaster skin on the existing planter to match the color of the building and the accent brick band as proposed by the developer and agent. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Gregory abstained). V. DISCUSSION ITEM: 1. CASE NO: 159 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): T.G.I. Friday's, P.O. Box 400329, 14665 Midway Road, Dallas, Texas 75240. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1983 VI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. STEVE SMITH, Associate Planner /pa