Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-14 �wr' vrrr� MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - APRII 14, 1987 1:00 P.M. COFIMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED MARING DRIVE « � � * * � * «� * * � � * � « * � * * * * � ,► * * ,� * * * * * � ,� * * * � * * I. The meeting was called to order at 1 :00 pm after a one hour study session. Commission Members Current Meetinq Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 6 1 A1 Cook X 6 1 Mary Drury X 5 2 Russell McCrea X 7 0 Rick Holden, Alternate X 7 0 Staff Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Catherine Sass Ken Weller Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the minutes of March 24, 1987 as written. Carried 5-0 II. Moved by Camiissioner Drury, seconded by Camiissioner McCrea to approve the folia+ing cases by minute motion. Carried 5-0 1. CASE N0: CUP 87-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : TAKASHI 8 KAZUKO YAMAGUCHI , 73-391 Catalina Way, Palm Desert. CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of single family dwelling and second senior apartment unit. LOCATI�i: Northeast corner Ei Cortez and Santa Ynez. ZONE: R-1 2. CASE NQ: 329 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, Box 3249 Terminal Annex, M.L. 731E, Los Angeles, CA 90051 . NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of replacement af two existing four foot dish antennae with two eight foot antennae. LOCATION: 75-095 Mayfair ZONE: SI � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAI COMMISSION APRIL t4, 1987 3. CASE N0: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROSE Z FASHION5, 73-640 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260; PORTALS, 73-280 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE � PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new art work (sfgn) on existing awning. LOCATIOPI: 73-640 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 4. CASE N0: 322 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BAKERS SQUARE RESTAURANT, c/o LEIFER MARTER 8 DUNCAN ARCHITECTS, P.O. Box 1022, Santa Barbara, CA 93102-1022. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of tandscape plan. �OCATION: 73-075 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Approval subject to the following conditions. 1 . African sumak to be minimum 24" boxes. 2. The crape myrtle trees to be replaced with evergreen trees. 3. Ground cover to be replaced with more appropriate pianting. 5. CASE N0: 306 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : AHMANSON DEVELOPMENT, 1001 Commerce Drive, Building E2, Irwindale, CA 91706. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of parking lot lighting plan. LOCATIOM: Northwest corner Town Center Way and Highway 111 . ZOME: PC 3 Approval is for 28 foot high lighting fixtures. 2 +Wr� � M I NUTES ARCHITECTURAL t:0lIMISSION APRIL 14, 19�7 6. CASE N0: 164 C APPLICANT (At� ADDRESS): CARVER MANAGEMENT CORP. , 555 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Patm Springs, CA 92264. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for 5100 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Pad F at southwest corner of Plaza de Monterey shopping center - Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. ZONE: Approval is for building without signage. III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE N0: 328 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOB SIPOVAC, 73-415 Shadow Mountain J-1 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remodel and expansion of restaurant formerly known as Peg Leg Inn. LOCATION: 73-098 Nighway 111 Z01�: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith explained that commission in study session reviewed the proposal and had concerns with the parking and the expansion of the facility. The applicant presented a colored drawing and explained that the proposed restaurant would be fast food Italian. They are proposing to enclose the existing patio structure to provide additional seating. Commissioner Drury asked if there was sufficient parking provided for the existing structure. Mr. Smith indicated there were no established parking spaces at this time and that 20 spaces would be required with the expansion of the building. Commissioner Holden suggested that they provide six full size parking spaces and six compact spaces. 3 � � M I NUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1987 Comnissioner Drury felt the building was an eyesore and that any improvements would be beneficial . Her only concern was with the roof mounted awning. She reco�nended that it be placed over the entrance door. The applicant indicated that there would be no writing on the proposed awnings. Mr. Smith presented a plan of the core commercial area which included this property. The plan showed a proposed parking lot/structure just north of this property which woutd be used by the commercial developments located in this area. Upon reviewing this plan the commission felt that the parking was not a major concern compared to the upgrading of the existing building. Commission agreed that when the redevelopment and parking area is completed the additional spaces needed should be addressed at that time. Commissioner Drury questioned what would be done with the rear of the building. The appticant explained that there would be some renovation done on the rear of the building which would eliminate the view of the water heater and other materials located there. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the remodel and expansion subject to the following conditions. 1 . Revise parking to meet code. 2. The awning located at the top of the building to be relocated to the same height as the others awnings just above the entrance door. 3. Rear elevation drawings to be provided for review and approvai . 4. �andscape plan to be provided. 5. Roof mounted equipment to be adequately screened. 6. Awning specifications to be approved by this canmission. Carried 5-0 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE N0: PP 87-10 APPLICANT (At� ADORESS): MIRALESTE INVESTMENT COMPANY, P.O. Box 3234, Palm Desert, CA 92261 . 4 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COlIMISSION APRIL 14, 1987 NATURE OF F�ROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 9 unit office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Ave. 250 feet south of Sonora Drive. ZOPIE: O.P. S.P. Mr. Smith explained that staff had concerns regarding the proposed 10 foot access which would be the only access at this time. He asked the commission for comments on the architecture and for suggestions on resolving the access problem. Mr. Bob Picking, applicant, noted that the property was changed from R-3 to office professional . He is proposing a nice office building that would upgrade the area. He indicated that he would be agreeable to increasing the driveway to 12 feet which should be sufficient. Commissioner Holden felt that landscaping should be provided along the driveway and noted that an architect should be involved in designing a pro,�ect from the very beginning. He felt the landscaping and architecture should be upgraded and noted that there are require- ments for landscaping in parking areas. Mr. Smith explained that code requires a 24 foot driveway with planting to be provided. Commissioner Cook felt that this project shouid be required to provide the code requirement of a 24' driveway with landscaping so that this project is similar to the rest of the developments on Monterey. He thought the structure could be better designed to suit the site. Chairman Gregory noted that the architectural style of the building was lacking and should be studied. He suggested that going to two stories be studied. It was moved by Corrimissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Drury to return this case to the applicant for restudy. Applicant to address the above noted concerns including the code requirements for access. Carried 5-0. 2. CASE N0: PP 87-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIRALESTE INVESTMENT CORP. , P.O. Box 3234, Palm Desert, CA 92261 . 5 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL C011MISSION APRIL 14, 1987 NATURE OF F'ROJECT/APPROVAL SaIGHT: Preliminary approval of four single story apartments. LOCATION: South side Shadow Mtn. Drive 500 feet west of Portola. ZONE: Commissioner Holden recorrxnended that landscaping other than gravet be used. Commissioner Cook indicated that the garages laoked like they would be a tight fit. He stated that they have to be 10 foot clear space. It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Drury to grant preliminary approval sub,�ect to the following conditions. 1 . Parking to be design to meet city code. 2. Garages to be at least 10 foot clear space. 3. Buiiding #4 to be pushed back to allow for breezeway between garages. 4. Landscape plan including landscape buffer at refuse area to be submitted for approval . Carried 5-0 3. CASE N0: PP 16-83 Amendment #1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT DISPOSAL, 41575 Eclectic Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260; HOWARD PARCELL, 4815 Main Street, Yorba Linda, CA 92686. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI. SOUGHT: Preliminary approvai of expansion to parking and storage area and a second story addition. LOCATION: South side of Lennon Place between Eclectic and Corporate Way. ZONE: S. I . Mr. Diaz noted that the applicant needed approval of the property owner's association and that they are required to provide a wall around the trash/storage area. 6 � � M I t�1TES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1987 The applicant expiained that the property owner's association had no concerns with the building or the wall but they did with the transfer station. It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Cotrxnissioner McCrea to grant conceptual approval . Carried 4-0 4. CASE N0: PP 87-9 APPLICANT (A1� ADDRESS): FRED VEIGA, 640 N. Tustin Avenue #105, Santa Ana, CA 92705; BILL ROSSWORN, 41530 Woodhaven Drive E, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PRO.IECT/APf�ROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of two 2-story fourplex apartments. LOCATION: Southwest corner Shadow Hills and Driftwood Drive. ZONE: R-3 Mr. Joy explained that the proposed building is almost identical to existing surrounding buiidings and reviewed changes that had been made. Commissioner Cook asked if staff had any concerns with the 10 foot setback from the curb. Mr. Joy indicated that staff had no concerns and that there was no landscape plan submitted as of yet. It was moved by CortKnissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Holden to grant preliminary approval subject to a landscape plan being submitted for approval . Carried 5-0 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None V. ORAL COMMlM1ICATIONS: None VI. ADJOI�NMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2: 10 p.m. �,. STEVE"S ITH, Asso �ate Planner /dlg 7