Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-28 � � MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCNITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - JANUARY 28, 1986 2:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVIGES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * � * * * � * * � * * * * * +� « ,► � � � * * * � * * � * � * * * � * * � � I. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm after a one hour study session. Commission Members Current Meetinq Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Greqory, Chairman X 2 0 A1 Cook X 2 0 Mary Drury X 2 0 Charlie Martin X 2 0 Russell McCrea X 2 0 Rick Holden, Alternate X 2 0 Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Stan Sawa Phil Joy Phil Drell Ken Welier Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Martin to approve the minutes of January 14, 1986 as amended on page 8 regarding the amended motion for appeal at 72-890 Amber Court. I I. Moved by Cami i ss i oner Cook, seconded by Comm i ss i on Drury to �prove the following cases by minute motion. Carried 5-0 lChairman Gregory abstaining on Case No. 292 C) 1. CASE N0: 878 SA (Amendment) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RUSTY PELICAN, 2862 McGan Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; JOHN HOWENSTINE INC, 3188 J Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOIIGHT: Amendment to approved sign. I.00ATION: Northwest corner of Highway 111 and Painters Path. ZOhIE: PC (4) 2. CASE N0: 292 C APPLICANT tAND ADDRESS): SACRED HEART CHURCH FOR ROMAN CATHOL.IC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO, 43775 Deep Canyon Drive, Palm Desert, CA 9226Q; CHAR�E5 BRUWN, ARCH, 647 N. Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501 . � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURA� COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary and final approval of plans for addition to church. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Deep Canyon Drive. ZONE: R-1 9,000 3. CASE N0: 279 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TRIAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, c/o Strother Construction Company, Inc. , 74-990 Velie Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE � PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final appraval of architectural plans for an industrial/office complex. LOCATION: 5outhwest corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. ZOrlE: S. I . S.P. Subject to a final landscape pian approval prior to building permit issuance. 4. CASE N0: 792 SA (Amendment) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BAKERS SQUARE RESTAURANT, 73-025 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of changes to existing freestandi�g sign. LOCATION: South side of Highway I11 east of Hiyhway 74. ZONE: C-1 S.P. 5. CASE N0: 1100 SA APPI.ICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SHELL OIL, 73-021 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of illuminated gas price signs to replace existing non-illuminated ones. LOCATION: Northeast corner Z�IE: C-1 S.P. 2 �° � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 6. CASE N0: 164 C APPLiCANT (AND ADDRESS) : CARVER MANAGEMEN7 CORP. , 559 S. Palm Canyon Drive. Palm Springs. CA 92262. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument sign for shoppinq center. LOCATION: 5outheast corner of Country Club Drive and MontereY Avenue. ZONE: PC (2) 7. CASE N0: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : BERNIE LEUNG for BEERHUNTER. 73-550 Alessandro Drive, Suite Z. Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI SOUGHT: Approval of wood siding to replace glass windows. LOCATION: Shopping center on the southeast corner of Monterey and Country Ctub Drive. ZONE: Subject to the bottom wood vertical 's being replaced with stucco. AT THIS POINT THE AGENDA WAS SUSPENDED TO A�LOW THE DI5CUSSION ITEM REGARDING THE FENCE AT 72-890 AMBER COURT. 1. APPEAL BY RALPH WOOD REGARDING FENCE AT 72-890 AMBER COtlRT Commissioner Martin felt that the commission had given it's recorrxnen- dation but felt that it was fair to hear Mr. Wood's testimony since he requested a continuance. He stated that the Pizula's had done nothing wrong. He asked Chairman Gregory to give some insight on this discussion since he was familiar with it. Chairman Gregory indicated that he was concerned that this item should not be before this body and that maybe it shauld have been taken to city council . He explained that the appiicant had received a permit ta install the fence and that after it was installed the Deep Canyon Tennis Club members did not like the appearance. He noted that recommendations had been made on how to solve this probiem and neither party was satisfied. 3 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 Mr. Ralph Wood, Board of Directors for Deep Canyon Tennis Club, stated that this matter was taken up to appeai the decision from the last architectural meeting. He indicated that no legal aspects were involved and that they were here to offer suggestions and ideas that wo�ld be acceptable to Deep Canyon Tennis Club. Mr. Woad felt that the property owner constructed this fence without trying to coincide with other fences and landscaping in the area. He noted that the home owner's association thought that the fence was offensive. He felt that the contractor should have put the unfinished side of the fence facing the Pizula's property. Mr. Roy James, General Manager at Deep Canyon Tennis Club, stated that in his opinion the fence is unsightly. He presented photos which showed other fences in the area, which included wrought iron �nd block walls. He indicated that there was a 30" space of dirt in the drainage area which could be planted with vines. Mr. Scott McClanahan, Oeep Canyon attorney, indicated that Dee� Canyon Tennis Club was built first and that maybe they shouid tear down the fence and start from the beginning. The wood fence can be covered with oleanders which Deep Canyon would provide maintenance for on the outside of the fence. He also suggested that the Pizula's move their f ence toward their property and plant in between the retaining wall and the wood fence or plant in the 30" in the drainage area. Mr. Drell explained that the pubiic works department stated that this area is a drainage easement that needs to be kept clear and is not ptantable. Commissioner Drury indicated that this was wh_y they had suggested that the applicant plant some type of vine on their side of the fence that would grow over and cover the Deep Canyon side. Chairman GregorY thought that the most effective way to solve this would be to plant some trees on the Deep Canyon side which would not change the character of the property and would atlow screening of the fence. Mr. Wood stated that it was not unreasonable to ask that the Pizula's double side and paint the fence and also provide landscaping. He thought that public works might allow them to plant in the drainage easement if they knew the situation. He indicated that Deep Canyon would be willing to maintain the landscaping. 4 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 Chairman Gregory asked for a motion. Commissioner Coak stated that the statements made by this commission at the last meeting stiii apply. He felt that the Pizula's have made attempts to solve this problem and that the fence would weather in time which will look fine and does not inhibit the view. Chairman Gregory thought that maybe this should go to city councii . Commissioner Martin indicated that he would like to resolve this probiem at architecturai commission level . He noted that the commission had provided its recortxnnendation. He thought that the fence shouid be stained but that it did not need to be double faced. The vines wouid grow over and cover the fence facing Deep Canyon Tennis Club. He thought that the matter regarding planting in the drainage easement should go to public works for discussion. Mr. Wood suggested that pyracantha be planted on the gro�nd level and Deep Canyon would keep them trimmed. Mr. Diaz asked if it would be acceptable as an alternative to ask both parties to get together with staff and iron out what there feelings are on this matter. He indicated that this would be his recortxnnendat i on. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Martin to ask staff to work with the Pizula's and Deep Canyon Tennis Club to see what pubiic works will allow in the way of planting in the easement area within the next two weeks. Motion carried 5-0 III. CASES: A. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE N0: 1069 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE GOLD SHOPPE, 73-320 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260; PALMS TO PINES DRAPERIES 8 CANVAS SPECIALTIES. NATURE � PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage. LOCATION: North side of E1 Paseo west of Lupine. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that revised plans show the drainage system for the proposed awnina. 5 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 Commissioner Cook felt that the design of the awning was inappropriate for the design of the building, Commissioner McCrea indicated that the design was satisfactory to him. It was moved by Corr�nissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the awning with the deletion of the words "fine jewelry". Carried 4-1 (Cornrnissioner Cook opposed) 2. CASE N0: 275 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CRYSTAL LTD, c/o MCCULLOUGH & ASSOC. , 16815 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 201 ; ED MARK c/o INDUSTRIA� WEST, 74-947 Highway I11 , Indian Welis, CA 92210. NATURE OF PRO.IECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a 35,000 square foot office/industrial compiex. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Hoviey Lane and Beacon Hill . ZOME: S. I . Mr. Joy explained this case and indicated that the plans were substantially the same as the preliminary plans. Chairman Gregory stated that there would have to be a revised landscape plan provided. Commissioner Drury questioned the roof mounted equipment being adequately screened. Cortrnissioner Cook indicated that the equipment has to be below the structure and can not be visible from the street. He sugc�ested that the parapet be raised to screen the equipment. Commissioner Martin stated that the parapet should be a design element on the building. Commissioner Cook pointed out that there would be evaporative coolers placed on the roof for the warehouse in the future which would have to be screened. Moved by Commissioner Cook: seconded by Commissioner Drury to continue this item so that plans showing roof mounted equipment screening and a revised landscape plan can be submitted. 6 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAI COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 3. CASE N0: 278 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : NANCO DESIGN INC. , Elephant Bar, 800 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans to remodel existing cornrnercial building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Highway 111 and San �uis Rey. ZONE: C-t S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that in study session commission had concerns with the proposed awnings and the building materials. Mr. Lyman Martin clarified where the awnings were located and the materials to be used. He also noted that the only awning to have elephants on it would be the front entrance awning. Commissioner McCrea questioned screening of roof mounted equipment. Mr. Martin explained that he was adding a parapet which would screen all roof mounted equipment. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve this item. Carried 5-0 CoRxnissioner Drury had to leave at this point of the meeting. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE N0: 292 MF APPIICANT (AND ADDRESS): SANBORN & RYLEE, 250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660. NATURE � PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGNT: Preliminary approval of 77 unit retirement development. LOCATION: Northeast corner San Pascual and Catalina. ZONE: R-2 S.O. Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report for the comrnission. 7 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL C�MISSION JANUARY 28, t�6 Commission had concerns with the roof mounted equipment being adequately screened. Mr. Rylee indicated that it would be placed behind the raised roofs. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant was aware of the commission's concerns and that he should address those at the time of final working drawing submittal . Moved by Commission Martin, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to grant preliminary approval . Carried 2-0-2 (Commissioner Cook and Chairman Gregory abstaining) . 2. CASE N0: 286 C APPL.ICANT (AND ADDRESS); IW-NINE/BOB ORR, 198 Madrid Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PRO.IECT/APPROVAL S�1GHT: Preliminary plans for a 6,000 square foot industrial building. LOCATIOHI: South side of Mediterranean. ZONE: 5. I . Commissioner Martin indicated that he had no problem with the building, Chairman Gregory stated that the landscape plan should be similar to the ad,jacent building. Cortxnission expressed concern with the roof mounted equipment being adequately screened. Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded bY Commissioner Cook to grant preliminary approval . Garried 4-0 3. CASE N0: 285 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRANK GOODMAN & DOUG GRIFFITHS, 77-90U Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PftOJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural review of commercial office building. LOCATION: Southeast corner of San Pablo and Alessandro. ZONE: C-1 8 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant had revised the previous plans considerably and that staff was working with them on the site plan problems. Commissioner Cook stated that he liked the bottom of the buiiding but thought that there might be some maintenance problem with the redwood. Mr. Frank Goodman indicated that the tenant of the building will also be the owner and that he wouid keep the redwood looking good. Commissioner Martin stated that he would like to see something with an edge with redwood in the middle with the redwood running horizontally not diagonally. The redwood should be cut down. Commissioner Cook was concerned with the possibility of a sign being placed on the parapet. Mr. Goodman indicated that the sign would be placed on the wall and not on the parapet. Commissioner Cook felt that the wood should be continued completely around the buiiding and thought that if the redwood were horizontal it would make the building sleeker. Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Cortxnissioner McCrea to grant preliminary approval subject to the fascia being revised to be approximately two feet of stucco with three feet of redwood and stucco above the redwood with the stucco being recessed a minimum of four inches and to continue around the building. Carried 4-0 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. D 8 A SHADE COMPANY for Savene Commissioner Cook indicated that the commission needs a scale elevation drawing and a location drawing to show how the awning will look on the building. He felt that the two awnings were inconsistent with each other and not appropriate for the building. Chairman Gregory stated that he would have to see a more detailed drawing before granting approval . Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Cort�nissioner Cook to continue this case to allow the applicant time to resubmit additional drawings. Carried 4-0 9 � �ww� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL C�IMISSION JANUARY 28, 1�6 2. NONCHALANCE Mr. Weller indicated that the addition to the building had been approved. Commissioner Cook thought that the awning should start under the overhang and that the front awning should take a different form. Chairman Gregory stated that the awning was weak which did not help the weakness of the building. This opportunity should be used to design something ta improve this buildirig. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to continue this case in order for the appticant to redesign a more appropriate awning for the intent of the building. Carried 4-0 3. NEILS ANNING Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant was requesting to cha�ge the material of the approved awning to a translucent material which would be the same color. Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Cook to approve the change of material . Carried 4-0 4. CASE N0: 239 C APPLICANT: Vaca�ion Inn REQl1EST: To relocate freestanding sign. This case was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 5. 73-775 SHADOW LAKE - SINGLE FAMILY HEIGHT LIMITATION The height limit variation was to be for a garage for an RV. Commissioner Martin questioned if a covered RV space was allowed in the city. Mr. Smith indicated that everything is legal with this submittal . Code states an RV must be screened from the street. Commissioner Hoiden thought that there should be some screening for the RV ta the neighboring lot. Commissioner Martin thought that the commission should ask for a picture that shows what is happening on the side of the lot where the RV will be. 10 � '� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COlIMISSION JANUARY 28, 1986 It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner �ook to continue this case to allow applicant to provide pictures showing the view from the neighboring home. Carried 4-0 V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m. ��� STEVE 5MITH, Associ te Planner /dlq 11