Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-23 MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 23, 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 18 0 Al Cook X 14 4 Mary Drury X 12 6 Charlie Martin X 17 1 Russell McCrea X 14 4 Rick Holden, Alternate X 14 4 Staff Present: Steve Smith Phil Drell Catherine Sass Ken Weller Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Martin to approve the minutes of September 9, 1986 as written. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Drury abstaining) . I1. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the following cases by minute motion. Carried 5-0 1. CASE NO: 254 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL BANK, Mountain View Falls, P.O. Box 92991 , Los Angeles, CA 90009. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised landscape plan. LOCATION: Mountain View Falls 2. CASE NO: 312 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. & MRS. WAMBAUGH c/o ROBERT RICCIARDI , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings and landscaping. LOCATION: North side of Highway 111 east of Cabrillo. ZONE: C-1 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 Approval subject to the following condition: 1 . Addition of planter at east front of building and street trees. II1 . CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 1133 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROBERGE JEWELRY, 73-520 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage. LOCATION: Northeast corner San Pablo and El Paseo. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith explained that the proposed awning had received conceptual approval with the colors and signage to be reviewed. Commission, at study session, discussed whether the awning should be one continuous awning or broken into sections. Consensus was to have one continuous awning. Mr. Larry Grobeck, applicant, explained that the awning would be black with white lettering and would be 90 feet of actual awning. He noted that one of the "Roberge" names was deleted from the original awning proposal . Commissioner Holden was concerned with how the ends of the awning would look and how the awning would relate to the wood beams. He requested a drawing showing what happens at the ends of the awning. The applicant indicated that some beams would be cut and removed to provide space for the awning to hang properly. Commissioner Cook thought that the awning could not be installed as indicated by the applicant. He questioned if the owner of the building concurred with the alternations. The applicant indicated that the owner was in favor of all changes being made. Commissioner Martin felt that the awning would provide solar protection and thought it was nice and clean. He suggested a scale drawing be provided. 2 `w. 140* MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 Commissioner Cook requested additional drawings showing how the awning would attached to the building. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Holden to grant approval subject to a scale drawing being reviewed detailing the ends of the awning. Carried 5-0 B. Preliminary plans: 1. CASE NO: 316 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : DR. G. ROBERT ROGERS for MESA VIEW PARTNERS, 73-261 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a residential project consisting of one single family residence, one duplex structure and one vacant lot for a future R-I type structure. LOCATION: A triangular shaped parcel directly southeast of the intersection of Mesa View Drive and Highway 74. ZONE: R-1 S.P. Ms. Sass outlined the project and explained that there would have to be a change to the plan to allow for a meandering bike path. Commissioner Martin questioned if there would be a wall and suggested that the wail meander with the sidewalk. Commissioner Cook was objected to the homes being located to close to the street. He felt that the most secluded area of the site is used for the tennis court. He felt that site planning should be restudied. Mr. Joe Dunn, architect, explained that the future owners of the units preferred this location for the tennis court. Chairman Gregory was concerned with the front setback and suggested that there be additional space for the bike path. Commissioner Holden requested that the north corner of the site be narrowed to provide more open space at the corner. Mr. Dunn requested some aid in designing the bike path. Ms. Sass indicated that Mr. Joy could help with this. 3 New MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 Moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Cook to continue this case so that the above concerns may be addressed. Carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO: 317 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THOMAS MILLER for Residence Inn, 11753 San Vicente, Los Angeles, CA 90049. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 168 unit Home-tel Style Inn, with restaurant and a service station as part of concept. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Highway III and Deep Canyon Road. ZONE: PR-5, N S.P. and P.C. (4) S.P. Ms. Sass outlined the changes that had been made since the prior proposal . Commissioner Cook stated that the main building did not relate to the other buildings and felt that several revisions were needed before architectural approval was granted. Chairman Gregory felt the architecture deviated from the general desert feeling. The buildings appear upright rather than low rise. Mr. Baum indicated that the buildings were within the height limits. Mr. Smith noted that the front and rear portions of the site are zoned differently and permit different height limits. The front portion permits 35 feet and the rear portion permits 30 feet. Chairman Gregory felt that the deletion of one tennis court improved the site plan and suggested creating additional open space that was needed. Commissioner Martin stated that the layout was fine but requested that a section drawing running north and south be submitted for review. He felt that the main building needed revisions and the west elevation needed to be reviewed. Mr. Foster indicated that they would berm and landscape the west elevation to provide screening for the parking lot. He agreed that the main building was not complete. 4 vrr+ MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 Chairman Gregory questioned how the drainage was to work. Mr. Baum explained that they are working on the possibility of directing the flow to the northwest corner of the site onto Deep Canyon. Commissioner Martin felt there were too many medians. Mr. Smith explained that the department of public works was requiring several of the the medians. Commissioner Holden indicated that he had been approached by both planning commission and city council members who urged that the gas station have a village style to it. He noted that more detailed drawings for the hotel were needed and the main building needed restudied. It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Drury to continue the hotel portion of the project. Carried 5-0 The architect for the gas station explained that the architecture of the station is efficient and represents the Mobil image. He asked for the commissions concerns so that he could address them. Chairman Gregory stated that the commission was looking for a village style station that would tie-in with the hotel project or that the station be hidden. Commissioner Holden felt that the station should be unique to our city or it would be denied by planning commission or city council . Commissioner Drury was concerned with the mini market and car wash being located on Highway 111 . The architect explained that there would be mounding on Deep Canyon that would cut down the visibility of the car wash building. He noted that they could provide a gable roof on the mini market building but felt the canopy should remain as proposed. Commissioner Holden noted that a gas station might not be appropriate for this corner site. He suggested that they give the architect some freedom to design an attractive station. The architect pointed out that the site grade is three feet below Highway III and with three feet of additional mounding six feet of the car wash will be hidden. 5 wr► MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 Chairman Gregory agreed with the use of landscaping to provide additional screening but felt that more than landscaping was needed. He suggested a retaining wall and enhanced concrete. The architect requested that they return to architectural commission with a new proposal addressing the commission's concerns prior to planning commission review. Commissioner Martin felt the architecture shouldn't have to tie-in with the hotel and stated that he liked the industrial design. He did feel that city council would be more apt to approve a gas station that would tie-in architecturally with the hotel . It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Drury to continue this case. Carried 5-0 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR PARKWAY ON HIGHWAY III BETWEEN LUPINE AND LARKSPUR. Mr. Gregory presented plans and asked for discussion. Commissioner Cook asked why there were no trees in the shopping center parking lot and suggested that some be provided. It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Holden to approve the plans subject to the addition of trees in the eastern Coco's parking lot. Carried 4-0 (Chairman Gregory abstaining) . 2. PIETRO'S Mario DelGuidice, owner, explained that the proposed upper awning for his restaurant was a recessed awning that would be inside the fascia. Only the valance and 10" of awning will be visible. He also requested that the commission reconsider the signage proposed for the small awnings which would be in 6" letters. Chairman Gregory explained that the commission is trying to be consistent on this item by not allowing signage other than the business identification. It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Cook to approve the upper awning and deny the request for lettering on the small awnings. Carried 5-0 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 3. CASE NO: 308 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PACIFIC EQUIPMENT, 6171 Wimbledon Drive, Riverside, CA 92506; HOLDEN & JOHNSON, 73-330 El Paseo #B: Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscaping equipment warehouse showroom. LOCATION: Northeast corner of 42nd Avenue and Corporate Way. ZONE: SI Mr. Holden explained the changes that had been made to the plans that were requested at preliminary approval and indicated that the landscape plan had been previously approved. Commission felt the changes were acceptable. It was moved by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the plans as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Holden abstaining) . V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. i ST E SMITH, Asso fate Planner /dlg 7