HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-26 Noe
MINUTES
PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
TUESDAY - JUNE 26, 1984
2:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
I. The meeting was called to order at 2:03 p.m. after a one hour study session.
Members Present: Al Cook
Ron Gregory
Rick Holden
Charlie Martin
Members Absent: Bernie Leung
Staff Present: Ray Diaz
Steve Smith
Tonya Monroe
Moved by Commissioner Martin, Seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve the
minutes for the meeting of June 12, 1984, as submitted. Motion carried 2-0-2.
II. Moved by Commissioner Holden, Seconded by Commissioner Martin, to approve the
following cases by minute motion:
1. CASE NO: 188 MF
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC COAST BUILDERS, INC., 1631 E.
18th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701; COACHELLA VALLEY STEEL AND
SUPPLY INC., P.O. Drawer ZZZ, Indio, CA 92202.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of plans for
maintenance building structure.
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive.
ZONE: PR-3, S.P.
Approval is subject to the following condition:
1. Evaporative coolers either be removed from roof or adequately screened.
2. CASE NO: 224 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COLUMBIA CENTER, R.H. RICCIARDI, 45-
275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval
of plans in a 8000 square foot retail building.
LOCATION: Columbia Center, west side of Highway 74, between Highway 111
and E1 Paseo.
ZONE: P.C. 3 (S.P.)
3. CASE NO: 205 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RUSSELL AND KOENEN TRUST, P.O. Box
2056, Palm Desert, CA 92261.
PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 26, 1984
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a
multitenant industrial building.
LOCATION: South side of Seco Lane in Palm Desert Business Park.
ZONE: S.I.
The minute motion on these cases was approved 4-0.
III. CASES:
A. Final drawings:
1. CASE NO: 223 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. GARY SCHRAMM, 73-098 Highway
111, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of elevation
change to Branding Iron.
LOCATION: North side Highway 111, east of Monterey.
ZONE: C-1, S.P.
Mr. Smith explained that during study session, the commission reviewed
the request for approval of an elevation change to the Branding Iron. He
indicated that the owner's intent was to create an Tyrolean-type
exterior.
Chairman Gregory explained to the applicant that there were two main
concerns expressed by the commission during study session. 1) The
Tyrolean style does not reflect the environment of the desert; and 2)
The structure on top of the roof gives a stage type of facade.
Mr. Gary Schramm was present and explained to the commission that he
would like to make the building look good.
Commissioner Holden indicated that the roof structure from the side
view would show that it didn't extend over the entire length of the
building.
Chairman Gregory asked the applicant if he could try to be more in
keeping with the desert environment.
Mr. Schramm indicated that he would like to keep a European style.
Commissioner Martin read a section of the zoning ordinance that
indicated that it is the commission's job to review the architecture of
proposed buildings to insure unity in the surrounding environment.
Mr. Diaz explained that the commission looks at compatibility, as
opposed to identical.
Mr. Smith explained to the applicant that if he wished to leave his plans
the way they are and the commission denied the request, he could appeal
to the city council.
-2-
f
PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 26, 1984
Mr. Schramm indicated he would like to work with the commission to
create an acceptable plan.
After further discussion, the commission moved to continue the case to
allow the applicant time to restudy the plans.
Moved by Commissioner Cook, Seconded by Commissioner Holden, to
continue the case. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Mr. Martin asked the commission to review plans to eliminate the green and
white awnings on the Greenhouse Restaurant. He explained that the applicant
would like to enclose the outside dining area.
The commission indicated that the plans looked architecturally acceptable.
However, there was a question regarding the need for setbacks.
B. During study session, the city attorney, Dave Erwin, addressed the commission
regarding its concerns about conflict of interest as members of a commission.
He explained that if the primary purpose of preparing plans is for commission
approval, this is a conflict of interest. If there is another primary purpose,
(i.e. presentation to lenders) problems should not arise.
C. Mr. Diaz requested the presence of a commissioner at the city council study
session on Thursday. He explained that there would be a discussion regarding
Section 25.56.300 of the code (i.e. towers). The city council is discussing
revising that code section.
V. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 2.56 p.m.
STEVE SMITH, A socia e Planner
Am
-3-