Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-14 � �r�' MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - JANUARY 14, 1986 2:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED NARING DRIVE * � � * * « * � * � * * ,� * � * * � * * * * � � * �. * � � * � * * � «. * � * � I. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm after a one hour study session. Cortmission Members Current Meetinq Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 1 0 A1 Coak X 1 0 Mary Drury X 1 0 Charlie Martin X 1 0 Russell McCrea X 1 0 Rick Holden, Alternate X 1 0 Staff Present; Steve Smith Stan Sawa Phil Joy Phii Drell Ken Welier Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Martin to approve the minutes of December 10, 1985 as written. II. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Camiissioner Drury to approve the following cases by minute nation. Carried 5-0 1. CASE N0: 1075 SA APPLICANT tAND ADDRESS): TED LAND SHOES, 73-725 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260; PORTALS, 73-280 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of an awning for shade purposes (no artwork or lettering) . LOCATIOM: South side Ei Paseo west of San Luis Rey. ZONE: C-1 S.P. 2. CASE N0: 268 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ED MARK, 247 La Paz Way, Palm Desert, CA 92Z60. �wrr� �' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 NATURE � PROJECT/APP'ROVAL SOl1GHT: Final approval of plans for two 14,000 square foot office/industrial buildings. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Cook Street and St James. ZONE: S. I . Subject to the conditions contained in the staff report with the following additions. 1 . That three additionai mondale pines be placed on Boardwalk. 2. That aii shrubs be increased to a minimum 5 gailon except for the Forthright and Day iily which can remain 1 gallon. 3. Replace the photinia on the south and west exposures with oleander. 3. CASE N0: 273 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): R.K. DEVELOPMENT, 74-947 Highway I11 , Indian Wells, CA 92210; BOB RICCIAROI , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a 44,000 square foot office/industrial complex. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Sego Lane and Beacon Hill . ZONE: Service Industriai Approval subject to the following condition. l . That the carob trees be increased to 24" boxes and that the agrapantha be planted in shade areas only. 4. CASE N0: 284 C APPI.ICANT (AND ADORESS): DEEP CANYON BUILDING PAR7NERS, P.O. Box 258, Palm Desert, CA 92260; RICHARD DODD 8 ASSOG, 201 Shipyard Way, Berth A, Cabin F, Newport Beach, CA 92663. NATURE OF PRO.IECT/APPROVAI SOUGHT: Preliminary approvai of plans for 12,700 square foat office condominium. 2 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COlIMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 LOCATION: South side Palm Desert Drive (Highway I11) approximately 210 feet east of Panorama Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Approval is subject to the conditions in the staff report and the following. 1 . That the screening of the roof mounted equipment be studied to insure that it is not visible from the street or from the second story offices. III. CASES: A. F i na i Drar+i ngs: 1. CASE N0: 234 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT HOTEL VENTURE, 591 Carmen de la Reina, Suite 1001, San Diego, CA 92108. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROYAI SOUGHT: Reconsideration of requested wall sign facing west. LOCATION: South side of Highway 111 east of Deep Canyon. ZONE: PC (4) S.P. Mr. Smith explained that at study session commission had concerns with two signs being located so close together. He noted that the sign was permitted by code and could be approved if the commission concluded that it would not be facing private property. Commissioner Drury indicated that if a condition stating that the sign would be removed, if requested by the restaurant owner, were applied she might be wiliing to approve the sign. Mr. Smith thought that they shouid ask for a letter of authorization from the restaurant owner before the sign is approved rather than having it be removed later. Comnissioner Martin thaught that the sign should be designed for the area where it is to be placed and also that it was too close in proximity to the monument sign. 3 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 Mr. John Hamilton, applicant, suggested that the monument sign be relocated to an area where it would not conflict with the location of the wall sign. Moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Cook to approve the wall mounted sign as submitted subject to the monument sign being relocated approximately 200 feet from the existing location. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairman Gregory abstaining) 2. CASE N0: 1064 SA (Amendment> APPLICANT �AND ADDRESS): WHOLESALE FURNITURE DIST. , 44-850 San Pablo, Palm Desert, CA 9226Q; GOLDEN STATE SIGN SYSTEMS, 111 8. Montalvo Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identifi- cation sign. LOCATION: Northwest corner San Pablo and Alessandro. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith indicated that the commission had been assured that the previously approved sign for this buiiding was the only new sign that would be placed on this building and that a sign program was not needed. Mr. John Ohea, sign contractor, expiained that the occupant of the building had leased an additional suite on Atessandro after the approvai of the first sign. He stated that the requested sign could be the same colors as the existing sign and that it would be a hand painted wood sign. Mr. Frank Goodman, property owner, confirmed that the occupant did lease an additional suite on Alessandro. Commissioner Cook questioned the amount of signage they were allowed. Mr. Smith stated that they were allowed 30 square feet on Alessandro and they were only requesting 20 square feet. Commissioner Mertin questianed the location of the sign to the parapet. Mr. Ohea expiained that the parapet was 30" and that the top of the sign would be even with the top of the parapet. 4 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL C�iMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 Commissioner Cook thought that the sign should be placed under the fascia not on top of it. Chairman Gregory suggested that the commission give some direction and have the applicant resubmit. Commissioner Martin suggested that it be placed under the parapet and that some photos and material samples be submitted also. Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Cook to continue this case. Carried 5-0. 3. CASE N0: 1069 SA APPL.ICANT (A1� ADDRESS): THE GOLD SHOPPE, 73-320 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260; PALMS TO PINES DRAPERIES 8 CANVAS SPECIA�TIES. NATURE � PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage. LOCATION: North side E1 Paseo west of Lupine. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that in study session commission thought that the changes were not substantial enough from the recommended changes of commission. Commissioner Cook noted that one of the commissions concerns at the previous submittal was that the canvas would not be appropriate with the type of roof. He felt that the awning did not look like it belonged on the building. Comrnissioner Drury thought that the "fine jewelry" should be deleted from the awning. The applicant indicated that the awning could be lowered to be connected to the fascia instead of the roof. Commissioner McCrea thought that if the awning were towered it would be more attractive. It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Comrnissioner Martin to continue this case to the next meeting with the condition that a detailed drawing showing the awning attached to the fascia under the lip of the tile and how the drainage will work. Carried 5-0 5 �r �wr� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 B. Preliminary Pla�s: l. CASE N0: 285 C APPLICANT (A1� ADDRESS): FRANK GOODMAN & DOUG GRIFFITHS, 77-900 Avenue of the 5tates, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural review of commercial office buiiding. LOCATION: Southeast corner of San Pablo and Alessandro. ZONE: C-1 Chairman Gregory indicated that there would have to be a substantiai upgrade in every aspect before he would approve this project. He thought with the way Alessandro is being developed they should make this area an attractive asset to the city. Commissioner Cook agreed with Chairman Gregory and noted that there was an opportunity to upgrade this area and the city standards. The building needs to be more interesting. Comrnissioners' McCrea and Drury agreed. Mr. Goodman asked if the commission was trying to make this a more expensive building. Commissioner Martin explained that he had seen this buitding design before and that he did not like to see the same design more than once. He noted the commission did not want him to spend more money, but that they preferred something different on this site, something more attractive to a renter. He also suggested that additional planting be used and even that the building be two story. Commissioner Martin thought that ali four elevations did not have to be the same, that there could be some variation. Mr. Goodman indicated that this will be a one tenant building and that the tenant can not go two stories for his use. He thought that the only thing that might need to be changed was the fascia. He noted that the building is attractive and clean looking. Commissioner Drury stated that the fascia and the colors of the building were her concerns. Cortmissioner Martin suggested that they orient the entrance to the parking lot where people wouid be entering from. Mr. Goodman replied that people would be entering from all sides of the building and that is why all four elevations are the same, so there is an 6 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAt_ COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 entrance on each side. Commissioner Martin indicated that the building being to its rnaximum on the lot was not a concern with him. Commissioner Cook questioned the intent on the corner of the building. He thought the building was cumbersome, boring and brutal . He noted there was no relief for landscaping on two elevations and that he thought this building was too much for the site. Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Corr�nissioner Drury to continue this case for restudy of the architecture of the building. Motion Carried 4-0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. APPEAL BY .RALPH WOOD REGARDING FENCE AT 72-890 AI�ER COURT Mr. Smith indicated that this item had been to this cortwnission in November as an add on item. At that time commission stated that with some minor changes the fence would be acceptable. Mr. Wood thought that he should come back to this commission and state his case. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Wood was asking for a continuance because he could not attend this meeting. Mr. Milo Pizula, property owner at 72-890 Amber Court, presented pictures and expiained that his intent was to provide privacy for his yard. He indicated that he had a permit to install the fence and that he did everything he was supposed to do. Mr. Weller noted that the permit was issued in error without planning department approval . Chairman Gregory indicated that he would have required that the fence be terraced. Mr. Pizula stated that it is 5 feet from the wall . Mr. Pizula indicated that the appellant suggested that he install planting in the drainage easement area, which the city does not allow. He also noted that the appellant's attorney sent them a letter asking them to cover the metal posts that were originally in the fence area, which they immediately covered upon the request. Commissioner Martin noted that the cornrnission had looked at this and given su99estions as to how to solve this problem. One was to add planting on the Deep Canyon parkway because of the additional space on that side of the wall . Mr. Dreil indicated that the city could 7 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMI�SION JANUARY 14, 1986 not require Deep Canyon t� do anything to their property because they are not applying for a permit. Commissioner Drury thought that adding horizontal members and staining the fence would be adequate as suggested by Commissioner Cook at the previous meeting. Commissioner Martin indicated that in some city's they would require the nicer looking side of the fence to be built toward the neighbor. Chairman Gregory suggested that they plant vines that would grow over the fence and eventually cover it. He indicated that the resident has done nothing wrong and has made every possible good neighboriy gesture to resolve this problem therefore he should not be penalized. Mr. Pizula covered the metal posts as requested and has gone above and beyond the call of duty. Mr. Pizula noted that the fence is cedar and that it would weather in an attractive way. He noted that the appellant said that the fence biocked the view. Commissioner McCrea stated that he lived in Deep Canyon Tennis Club and that he knew this fence did not block any views. Commissioner Martin indicated that the appellant has requested a continuance and that the commission should here from him so that they may resolve this problem. A motion was made by Commissioner Martin to continue this item. Commissioner Cook suggested that the commission should make a motion that stated its recommendation and also continue the case. A motion was made to amend Commissioner Martin's motion by adding that the fence as mitigated by adding the wood to the metal posts which is less offensive, there is no view loss and the commission has no objection and hereby approves the fence as built. The motion was then seconded by Cor�nissioner Drury. Vote carried 5-0 Mr. Smith explained to the applicant that the position of the city has been stated and that if this item comes up for discussion you know this commissions recommendation at this time. He indicated that this decision could be appealed to city council . 2. PALM DESERT 64' APARTMENT RENOVATION (Northwest corner Monterey 8 Fred Waring prive) Mr. Smith indicated that the improvements are mostly interior and asked the applicant to explain the proposed exterior improvements. 8 �ww� _ � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COFIMI5SION JAt�JARY 14, 1986 Mr. Michael Morris expiained that they are adding wrought iron railings and wood around the batconies. The front lot is being graded to allow better drainage and landscaping is being added. The building has been restuccoed and painted. Commissioner Cook had some concerns with the drainage along the fascia area. Mr. Morris expiained that the materials had been sealed on ali sides and that the biocking has a one foot space every three feet for drainage and air circulation purposes. Commissioner Cook thought that the improvements would look good but felt that there would be a problem with the drainage. He suggested that Mr. Morris ask the architect if he would prefer to carry the fascia board to carry the water over and drop behind the wall . Moved by Commission Drury, seconded by Comrnissioner McCrea to approve the improvements as submitted. Carried 4-0 3. BEER HUNTER Mr. Sawa indicated that the applicant was requesting to put in wood siding replacing the windows on the front of the buildinq. Mr. Gabriel King, representing Bernie Leung, AIA, noted that they were trying to create a rustic look and keep a similar look to the rest of the building. Only the front has wood, the side wiil remain the same. Commissioner Martin suggested that they keep some of the plaster around the doors and around the corner of the building to make a stronger look. Commissioner Cook agreed and thought that the wood on the building should be decreased to cover just the entrance and keep the rest giass. It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Cook to continue this case for resubmittal . Carried 4-0 4. FRED MARING PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SIGNS Mr. Charlie Martin explained that the previously submitted sign could not be instailed because of another structure in that area. He is now requesting 12" letters to be placed on the northwest corner of the building stating the buiiding name and 8" letters to be placed above the parking entrance stating the building address. 7he letters will be plastic with a matt finish and the color is to be discussed. 9 � � MINUTES ARCNITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1986 Commissioner Cook asked that the commission see a scale drawing showing what the sign will look like on the building. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Cook to approve the concept af the sign proqram. Carried 3-0-1 tCommissioner Martin abstaining} . 5. REPORT ON ITEMS OF CONCERN Mr. Welier indicated that Ortho Mattress had never pulled their sign permit. It was noted that there was no planning department stamp on the pians in the building department which were not the plans approved by the architecturai commission. The Kisco pool company at Panorama and Highway 111 does have a permit for the chain link fence around their lot but does not include the barb wire. Mr. We 1 1 er i nd i cated that corixn i ss i on had concern w i th an awn i ng for Cashmere Shop. Commission thought that it had required that the awning be extended back to the buiiding. The applicant djd apply for a perm i t but d i d not take i t out. The p i ans subm i tted d i d not have planning department stamp of approval although they were reviewed and approved by commission. V. AD.lOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. ,>�`�.P�c..QJ� . STEVE SMITH, Associ"a e Planner /dlg 10