Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-22 ) MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - DECEMBER 22, 1987 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 19 3 Al Cook, Alternate X 14 8 Mary Drury X 15 7 Russell McCrea X 21 1 Rick Holden X 21 1 Steve Sullivan X (as of 9/8/87) 8 0 Others Present: Steve Smith Phil Drell Ken Weller Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the minutes of December 8, 1987 as written. Carried 5-0 II. Moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the following cases by minute motion. 1. CASE NO: CUP 87-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ST. MARGARETS EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 47-535 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final drawings for sanctuary and church facility expansion. LOCATION: West side of Highway 74 north of the Palm Valley Storm Channel . ZONE: P, S.P. and R-1 S.P. Commissioner Sullivan abstained from this case. 2. CASE NO: PP 87-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOWELL WOODEN, 42-280 Beacon Hill , D-6, Palm Desert, CA 92260. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscape plans for models, parking area and phase one of Vista Paseo project. LOCATION: Along the east side of Palm Valley Storm Channel directly west of Kings Point, south of Hedgehog and north of Indian Creek Villas. ZONE: PR-7 Chairman Gregory abstained from this case. 3. CASE NO: PP 87-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOVELAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 135 Columbia Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of working drawings. LOCATION: South side of El Paseo, approximately 180 feet east of San Luis Rey. ZONE: C-1 Final approval subject to the following conditions: 1 . Approval of property owners association. 2. Landscaping to conform to previously revised plans. 3. Color board to be reviewed by architectural commission. 4. CASE NO: 1409 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for Desert Rug Crafters, 73-360 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage. LOCATION: ZONE: Approval subject to the awning projecting the same as the awning to the west. Commissioner Holden voted in opposition of this case. 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987 5. CASE NO: PP 87-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MIKE HOMME/RICK HOLDEN, 44-267 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Change to approved color scheme for office professional building. LOCATION: Monterey north of vacated Sonora Drive. ZONE: O.P. Commissioner Holden abstained on this case. 6. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KARL BURETZ NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of single family height limit. LOCATION: Edgehill Road south of Pitahaya. ZONE: 7. CASE NO: PP 86-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOHN DELLA, NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to working drawings to delete window accent treatment on sides and rear of building only. LOCATION: Driftwood Avenue ZONE: R-3 III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 335 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SIGNS AND SERVICES COMPANY, 10910 Boatman Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680 for PENGUINS YOGURT. 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identifi- cation signs and outdoor patio modifications. LOCATION: Palms to Pines East - Phases II west of Plaza Way. ZONE: PC (3) S.P. Mr. Orlando, applicant, explained the type of business Penguins is and indicated that they are a part of the community. Commissioner Holden was concerned that the adjacent business would request a parapet mounted sign if this sign was approved. Mr. Orlando felt the sign approval/denial should not be based on what type of business is adjacent to their business. He explained there is no neon proposed for these lights. Commissioner Cook indicated that this corner gets a lot of traffic and visibility and should do fine if a good business is located here. He felt they did not need a parapet sign in this location. Chairman Gregory repeated his previous suggestion of reducing the size of the letters and bringing the sign away from the corner of the building. Commissioner McCrea felt this action would mitigate any concerns he may have. Mr. Howington explained that they needed visible signage to attract the out of town visitors. He advised that they would reduce the letters to 18" and have the logos on the walls. Mr. Smith recommended that they provide 9" of clear space from the top of the letters and 9" clear space from the bottom of the letters. The east facing sign to provide 10' from the "S" to the corner of the building and the north facing sign to provide 10' from the "P" to the corner of the building. Deputy Conley requested that the applicant cut down the curb to provide a rounded effect at the corner. It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Cook to grant approval of the proposed signs subject to the following conditions. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners' Holden and Sullivan opposed) . 1 . Applicant to provide 9" clear space on the parapet above and below the parapet sign. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987 2. Lighting plan to be approved by staff. 3. Parapet signs to be located 10' from the center of the building at the nearest point. 4. Landscape plan and revised curb plan to be submitted. It was moved by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the outdoor patio modifications as submitted. Carried 5-0 2. CASE NO: 1341 SA APPLICANT LAND ADDRESS) : SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, 74-000 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to approved color scheme at One Eleven Town Center. LOCATION: 44-425 Town Center Way #8 ZONE: Commissioner Cook indicated that he would like to see color samples and materials to be used. It was moved by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to continue this case so that the applicant may provide color samples. Carried 5-0 3. CASE NO: PP 87-17 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): EL PASEO COLLECTION/EL PASEO ELEGANTE' , 40-840 Thunderbird Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final plan approval for commercial building. LOCATION: E1 Paseo at Sage. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Smith indicated the plans had been revised and that Ms. Sass was recommending an awning be added to the second building from the west. 5 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987 Commissioner Cook felt that the business that occupies this unit may wish to install their own awning. Mr. Martin explained that changes that had been made including toned down colors and some minor architectural changes. Commissioner Holden felt the cloud should be deleted from the one unit and the east corner of the western most building should wrap around rather than have a straight edge. Chairman Gregory was concerned with the trim colors. Mr. Drell advised that black tiles should not be used. It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to grant approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of property owners association. 2. Parking lot landscaping to comply with code requirements prior to building permit issuance. 3. The cloud to be deleted from the facade. 4. Roof section at grid line "F" to be resubmitted for approval . Motion carried 5-0. 4. CASE NO: PP 87-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MONTEREY INVESTMENT GROUP, 77-900 Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, CA 92260; JOHN OUTCAULT, 74-133 El Paseo #11 , Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for two story office project. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Dr. ZONE: O.P. Mr. Smith explained that commission in study session noted that the plans indicate the building height is over what is allowed by code. He explained that the height would have to be brought to code standards or taken to planning commission for approval of a variance. 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1967 Mr. Outcault explained that planning commission and architectural commission had already approved the plans as submitted. Mr. Oliphant felt it was inappropriate that this was brought to their attention after the public hearing. Mr. Smith reviewed the applicant's options. 1. Adjust the grading plan to bring the height within code. 2. Apply for a variance. 3. Revise the building to comply to code. Mr. Outcault felt the planning department should have reviewed these plans prior to the public hearing and informed the applicant if the plans did not conform with code. He explained that they may not be able to lower the grade and/or pad heights because of drainage. He suggested that they lower the height of the buildings as much as possible and ask that this commission approve it. Mr. Smith indicated that this commission does not have the authority to approve any type of variances. Commissioner Cook noted that cities vary in where they measure the height from. He felt that any approval would be inappropriate at this time because if the building is brought down in height the appearance would be changed. Mr. Smith presented the preliminary plans that were approved by architectural commission and they did not indicate pad heights. It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan to continue this case until the height concern is resolved. Carried 5-0. 5. CASE NO: 338 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RON ODEKIRK, 75476 Augusta Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of proposed remodeling of existing building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of El Paseo and Portola Avenue. ZONE: C-1 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1967 The applicant explained that the proposed remodeling will consist of addition of white brick and marble and a second story of 4,000 square feet. Mr. Weller asked what the applicant was planning to do about the foundation design. The applicant explained that it would be redesigned by an engineer. He noted that additional changes could be made when tenants move in to the vacant units. Commissioner Cook asked where the roof mounted equipment would be stored now that a second story will be taking the roof area. The applicant explained that there will still be adequate room for the equipment on the roof the building. Commissioners' Cook and Sullivan were concerned with the second story being plastered only with no other architectural enhancements. Commissioner Cook suggested that the fascia material used on the first story be used on the second story also. Commissioner Holden preferred that a glass band look around the second floor be utilized. It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Holden to grant conceptual approval with addition of architectural elements to the second floor to be addressed. Carried 5-0 B. Preliminary Plans: I. CASE NO: CUP 87-16 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DENNIS GODECKE, 71-650 Sahara Road, Suite 1 , Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for professional office building. LOCATION: Northwest corner Deep Canyon Road and Alessandro Drive. ZONE: R-3 Mr. Drell explained the proposal noting that the street would be narrowed in this area to 36 feet wide. Chairman Gregory requested additional trees be provided on the north property line. 8 N%NO' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION DECEMBER 22, 1987 It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Cook to grant preliminary approval subject to additional trees being provided on the north property line. Carried 4-0-I (Commissioner Holden abstained) . IV. MISCELLANEOUS: None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None VI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. STAVE S H, Associ to Planner /dig 9