Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-24 MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 24, 1987 1:00 P.M. COMMUNITY SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED HARING DRIVE 1. 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 17 3 Al Cook. Alternate X 12 8 Mary Drury X 15 5 Russell McCrea X 19 1 Rick Holden X 19 1 Steve Sullivan X (as of 9/8/87) 6 0 Others Present: Ray Diaz Steve Smith Catherine Sass Phil Drell Donna Gomez It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan to approve the minutes of November 10, 1987 as corrected. Carried 5-0 11. Moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Drury to approve the following cases by minute notion. Carried 5-0 1 . CASE NO: 1075 SF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MR. PETRUZZELLI , c/o CRAIG CONKLIN COMPANY, 73-612 Highway 111 #7. Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL. SOUGHT: Approval of single family home height. LOCATION: 73-030 Cailiandra ZONE: R-I 2. CASE NO: 925 SA (Amendment #1 ) APPLICANT (6"Q ADDRESS): PORTALS for THE 6LUEPRINTER. 73-280 E1 Paseo #6. Palm Desert. CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of menu on awning. *00 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24. 1987 LOCATION: 74-21- Highway III ZONE: C-1 This item was continued on a minute motion basis. 3. CASE NO: PP 87-2 & PP 87-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HSM PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3352, Palm Desert. CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of carport design. LOCATION: Shadow Mountain Drive west of Portola. ZONE: R-3 (3) This item was continued on a minute motion basis. 4. CASE NO: TT 22712 APPLICANT (AND ADDRE S): SAM ALACANO, P.O. Box 2247. Palm Desert, CA 92261 : THE FLYING BUTTRESS, 73-241 Highway Ill . Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 100 lot single family subdivision. LOCATION: North side of Hovley Lane between Portola and Monterey. ZONE: PR-5 No action was taken on this case. 5. CASE NO: 1379 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VICTOR MIHAJSON. 74-767 S. Cove Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage for new restaurant. LOCATION: 72-850 El Paseo. Palms to Pines East 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24. 1987 UM: PC (2) This item was continued on a minute motion basis. 111. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 288 C AMENDMENT APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOMINICK MANCUSO, 305 Tolosa Circle, Palm Desert. CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendments to working drawings for restaurant/office building under construction. LOCATION: Palms to Pines Village (Carl 's Jr. Center) . ZONE: C-1 Mr. Drell reviewed the changes that were made to the plans that had been approved originally. He explained that the commission could approve the changes. reauire modifications or reject the amendments completely. He indicated that commission should review whether the building is acceptable as built rather than what it could have been. Chairman Gregory asked what the applicant was willing to do. Mr. Drell indicated that commission could require that wooden elements be added to the windows to provide the french look that had been deleted. Chairman Gregory explained that the problem the commission faces is not having the chance to review the changes prior -to construction of the changes. He felt the original building was far superior and hoped that something could be done to make this building worth aporovina. Commissioner Drury was obiected to the changes of the second story which completely altered the appearance of the building. She noted that the deletion of the french appearance was not as much a concern as the deletion of the grid work which provided character to the second story. 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24. 1987 Commissioner Holden felt the building should be judged on its own merits rather than on how it should have been built. He indicated that he would vote for approval If he judged it on its own merits. Commissioner McCrea agreed with Commissioner Holden. Mr. Mancuso questioned why he was not informed at the time of Inspection that the building did not comply with the plans and would have to be reviewed by the architectural commission again. Chairman Gregory felt that a building should not be allowed to be changed in the middle of construction if it is still "acceptable". He wanted something better than "acceptable" and advised that the applicant appeal to city council if they receive a negative vote. He noted that the information he pointed out could be brought before the city council . Commissioner Sullivan indicated it would be economically unfeasible to ask the applicant to do the building over. He felt the applicant would take the easy wav_ out if the commission asked for additional changes. Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant is responsible for submitting any changes to previously approved plans. It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Drury to denv the amendments to the approved plan. Motion died with a 2-3 vote. A new motion was made by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the building as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairman Gregory and Commissioner Drury opposed) . Commissioner Holden indicated that the building was reviewed on its own merits and no decision was made based on financial hardship. He felt that if this buildina had come in like this originally he would have approved it. He noted that this was not setting a precedent. 2. CASE NO: 1397 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION, 747 Eugene Road, Palm Springs, CA 92264. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of identification signs. landscape plan, Cook Street and Country Club landscaping. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24. 1987 LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive. ZONE: PR 3.5. S.P. Ms. Laura Temple explained the proposed changes and upgrades to the Desert Falls project which Temple Construction has acauired. She noted that they are trying to give the project a whole new look. Mr. Gregory indicated the landscaping would be totally refurbished. Additional flower beds, trees and shrubs will be added to the street landscaping. He noted that a new sign would be requested. It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan to grant approval . Carried 3-0-2 (Chairman Gregory and Commissioner Drury abstaining) . 3. CASE N0: 1393 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVE KERBY, 3385 Somis Drive, Riverside. CA. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of illuminated business identification sign. LOCATION: 73-640 Highway III ZONE: C-1 Mr. Dave Kerby explained the proposed sign would be illuminated and 2' X 8' . Commissioner McCrea felt the sign was too cluttered. Chairman Gregory suggested that a portion of the sign be blacked out to eliminate some of the menu. It was moved by Commissioner Drury. seconded by Commissioner McCrea to approve the proposed sign subject to the removal of the bottom line of wording. Carried 4-1 (Chairman Gregory opposed) . 4. CASE NO: 1391 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : BRIGHT LIGHT NEON for SAFEWAY, 12200 Beliflower Blvd. . Downey. CA. 5 �r MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24. 1987 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of additional signage on Safeway's monument sign. LOCATION: 72-657 Hjahway III ZONE: PC-3 S.P. Commission indicated that the existing sign is a center identification sign and should not be used for noticing hours of operation. It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Commissioner Holden to deny the proposed signage addition. Carried 5-0 5. CASE NO: 1398 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DEANS COMPUTER CENTER, 73-195 Highway 111 . Palm Desert. CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of three identification scans on building fascia. LOCATION: 73-195 Highway III ZONE: C-1 . S.P. Ms. Sass explained that the proposed sign, as interpreted by code. exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for the building. Commissioner Holden felt the Proposed sign would not tie-in with the building and was concerned with the information listed on the sign. Ms. Sass asked if commission had any concerns with the colors or the Apple logo on the sign. The applicant indicated that they only sale and service Apple computers and that Apple has very strict rules that they have to comply with regarding signage. Commissioner Sullivan felt the address and phone number should be removed from the sign. Commissioner McCrea asked if the commission could grant approval subject to the removal of address and phone number and staff to approve the amount of signage allowed by code. 6 fir+` MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMI I SS I ON NOVEMBER 24, 1987 Chairman Gregory indicated he would like to see revised drawings showing location, size and deletion of phone number and address. It was moved by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to continue this case to allow restudy of the above mentioned concerns. Carried 5-0 6. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARL BURETZ. RUEL YOUNG NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of single family height limit. LOCATION: Edgehill Road south of Pitahaya. ZONE: Mr. Diaz explained that the concern is whether the basement is considered a story. He recommended the matter be referred to city council for interpretation of the code. Mr. Ruel Young explained the proposed plans and indicated the lot tapers down and the only thing under the house would be the garage and a storage area. He noted that he had spoke with Pat Conlon over the phone and Mr. Conlon informed him that the house would be considered one story per the building code. Commissioner Holden asked if the garage could be lowered more to bring down the roof height. Mr. Young replied that the garage could be lowered some. Commissioner Sullivan requested that the roof over the garage be sloped rather than flat. It was pointed out that the building encroached on the front setback. Mr. Young indicated he could move the residence back approximately two feet which would make a rear yard encroachment rather than a front yard. Commissioner Holden preferred the rear yard encroachment rather than the front. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to continue this case. Carried 5-0 7 ftw MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, 1987 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 87-29 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DOVELAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 135 Columbia Drive. Rancho Miraae. CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscape plans. LOCATION: South side of E1 Paseo, approximately 180 feet east of San Luis Rey. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Troncoso reviewed the revised plans and presented material samples to be used on the building. Chairman Gregory felt the landscape plan had been improved substan- tially and requested that the Mexican Fan Palms be a minimum 10 feet in height. It was moved by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to grant preliminary approval subject to the following conditions. 1 . Final landscaping and lighting plans to be submittal with final working drawinas. Carried 5-0 IV. MISCELLANEOUS: None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None VI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. i STEVE SMITH. Also ate Planner /dlca 8