Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-10 "r` MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - JUNE 10, 1986 1:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. The meeting was called to order at 1 :00 pm after a one hour study session. Commission Members Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 11 0 Al Cook X 9 2 Mary Drury X 8 3 Charlie Martin X 11 0 Russell McCrea X 9 2 Rick Holden, Alternate X 8 3 Staff Present: Steve Smith Phil Drell Ken Weller Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the minutes of May 27, 1986 as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Drury abstaining) . Il. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the following case by minute motion. Carried 5-0 1. CASE NO: 952 SA (Amendment) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARBLES c/o Marylyn Platz, 1127 Niagara, Burbank, CA 91505. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identif- ication sign. LOCATION: 72-624 El Paseo (One El Paseo Building) ZONE: PC (3) S.P. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 1190 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AMERICAN FINANCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 73-540 Highway III, Suite 5 & 6, Palm Desert, CA 92260. SW v.r MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1986 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identifi- cation sign. LOCATION: North side of Highway III east of San Pablo. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant wished the sign to be roof mounted which code does not permit. He suggested that the sign be placed at position similar to the Sunrise TV sign. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the proposed sign with the position to be similar to the Sunrise TV sign. Carried 5-0 2. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SORRENTINO'S, 73-725 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revision to awning and business identification sign. LOCATION: 73-725 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Commissioner Drury felt that the "Sorrentino's Restaurant" on the awning was fine but thought that the names should be removed. Commissioner Cook agreed and stated that the scallops did not compliment the awning and made it appear cluttered. Commissioner Martin suggested that a straight pink valance be used in place of the scallops. Mr. Renslo Valet indicated that the awning needed to have the first names on it to separate it from the Palm Springs restaurant. He noted that it was the full legal name of the restaurant. Chairman Gregory suggested having the names on the front of the awning and not on the sides. The applicants explained that the names have to appear with the restaurant name for legal purposes. 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1986 Commissioner Cook suggested that the front lettering be 4" for the names and 10" for Sorrentino's and that the sides be 3" and 8". The applicant agreed and felt that the scallops should be left on the awning. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve as submitted with "Bob & Manon" to be 4" letters and "Sorrent i no's" to be 10" letters on the front of the awning. On the side of the awning the letters are to be 8" and 3". The "Bob & Manon" are to be straight on the awning. Approval includes a straight valance. Carried 5-0 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: 301 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE SEITZ, Santa Anita Development, 363 San Miguel Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 90,836 square foot commercial development. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway Ill . ZONE: PC (4) Mr. Bruce Greene, architect, reviewed the plans, outlined the salient points and addressed some previous concerns. Chairman Gregory had no concerns with the service station location as long as it is well landscaped. He was concerned with the walkway around the facility being oriented toward people. He thought that it should be a pleasant place to walk with nice surroundings. He suggested strips with additional landscaping in the parking area and questioned the use of an overhead shade structure. Mr. Greene explained that the shade structure had two breaks in it where it would not provide shade. Commissioner Drury questioned the amount of signage the service station would be allowed and the location being changed to the restaurant site to the north. The only concern she would have with the service station on the restaurant site would be the materials that usually clutter the rear of a service station being visible. 3 1% ✓ MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL CO"HISSION JUNE 10, 1986 Mr. Smith explained that the state controls the signage for service stations which requires them to have a price sign visible to the street. Mr. Greene felt that a service station located next to a restaurant would lose the ambience that the two restaurants together create. He noted that the service station would not do any repairs or service therefore, would not have the materials most service stations have. Chairman Gregory thought that the two restaurants should relate more to each other. He suggested having a courtyard type of setting that would make this area appealing to visitors coming from the hotel . Commissioner Martin suggested have hardscape islands with trees in the parking lots so that they are not planted with shrubs that would be walked through. Mr. Greene explained that the parking lot islands are basically grass and trees. Commissioner Martin thought that drive-thru restaurants should be allowed in the city. He noted that there are drive-thru banks. He felt that if it were in the right location and with a proper design and landscape plan a drive-thru restaurant would be appropriate for the city. Commissioner Cook indicated that he did not want the service station to appear as the one located on Country Club and Monterey. He felt that the plans before the commission would need to be resubmitted to show architectural accents and details that are proposed. Chairman Gregory thought that the landscape should concentrate more on evergreen trees and less on deciduous. Commissioner Cook felt that the service station did not relate with the architecture of the rest of the project. Chairman Gregory suggested that the roof over the service station dispensers be painted to match the stucco on the other buildings. He noted that he would need to see a landscape plan and also a site plan. It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Cook to grant preliminary approval with the above discussion to be addressed. Carried 5-0 Mr. Smith recommended that any time there is a change to the plans that they return to this commission for review. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1966 Commissioner Cook felt that drive-thru restaurants, with proper integration could work in the city and noted that not every lot could handle a drive-thru restaurant. It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Martin that the commission feels that it would not be inappropriate to have a drive-thru restaurant on this site which had good architecture and landscaping. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairman Gregory opposed) . It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Drury to note the commission's endorsement of the location of the service station on the corner. Carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO: 305 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROB COTY, 2005 Noya, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for a five unit apartment project. LOCATION: Northeast corner of San Pascual Avenue and Santa Rosa Way. ZONE: R-3 Mr. Drell explained that the applicant had made some changes that the commission had requested and that he would be requesting a variance for one parking space. Commissioner Cook felt that the plan had improved but thought that the parking problem could be worked out without asking for a variance. Mr. Drell made a suggestion that the wall be replaced with posts which would give extra space to provide additional parking. It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Drury to grant preliminary approval subject to the following conditions. 1 . Consideration for the reduced widths of the main building to provide for the required setbacks. 2. The parking lot layout to be changed to provide spaces required. Motion carried 5-0 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1986 V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2: 18 p.m. STEVE SMITH, Associate Planner /dig 6