HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-22 � �
D�IVtIPFS
PAIM DESIIZT CS[�T�IISSIC�i
ZU�Y - N�I 22, 1988
1:00 P.M. �ITY SIIZYIC� �E R�4
73-510 FRID T�RIl� DRIVE
* �t � * * � * � * * * �e �c � �r �c * �r � �c �r � �e * � * * � * � � * �r * * * * * *
I. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm after a one hour study session.
Connitission Members Clzrrent Meeting Year to Date
Present Absent Present Absent
Ron Gregory, Chairman X 5 1
Al Cook, Alternate X 3 3
Ma.ry Druxy X 6 0
Russell McGYea X 4 2
Rick Holden X 5 1
Steve Sullivan X 6 0
Others Present: Ray Diaz
Catherine Sass
F`rankie Riddle
Phillip Drell
Brent Conley
Steve Smith
It was moved by Co�nnissioner Sullivan, seconded by Chaizman Gregory to approve
the minutes of March 8, 1988. Carried 3-0-1 (Catanissioner McCrea abstainiryg).
NOTE: Brent Conley and Ken Weller were present at March 8, 1988, meeting.
II. Moved by Cannissiorye�c Md�.a, seoorr3ed by Dn�YY � �
the follawir�g c��; by miruate moti.ori. Carried 4-0.
1. CASE NO' PP 87-32
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): C�-iARLES MARTIN/MIRALESTE INVES`IT�NTS,
40-840 Thunderbird Road, RancY� Mirage, CA 92270.
NATURE OF PROJEGT/APPROVAL SWC�iT: Rpproval of revised final
drawings for office building.
L(X'ATIO�T: Highway 111 at Cabrillo.
ZOI�- C-1 S.P.
1
� �
NffIV[1PF�
ARQIITF7CIURAL C�IM�SSI�i
N�RCH 22, 1988
2. t'ASE NU• PP 87-2 & 3
APPLICANP (AND ADDRFSS): F�T STII�DALL
1�1�[JRE �F Pl�DJE)C`P/APPf�DVAL SOUC�iT• Request cazport design approval
for two 13 unit residential projects.
L(X'ATI�T: Shadow Nbuntain Drive.
Z�• R-3
Subject to the applicant suLmitting plans showing the detail of the
connection of the wood facia to the structure and the manner in
which the wood pieces will be joined to each other.
3. CASE NO: 1440 SA/REF. (PP 87-14)
APPLICANP (AI�ID AT�RF�S): RAY-AL ENTERPRISES, INC., 73-170 Ramon
Road, 'I'housand Palms, CA 92276.
1�2[JRE OF PRC)J�GT/APPROVAL SQJC�IT: Approval of Sign Program.
L(X'ATION: 72-880 FYed Waring Drive.
Z(�VE• O.P.
Co�issioner Sullivan abstained.
III. CASFS:
A. Finat IJraw.iz�gs:
1. CASE NO• 1436 SA
APPLICANI' (At� ADDRFSS): PAL�M.S TO PINES CANVAS, Pinyon Pines, P.O.
Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92361.
NATURE OF PROJE�i'/APPROVAL SO[XK��: Appraval of 2 awnings over
suite entries.
LCX'ATI�T: 72-608 El Paseo.
ZqNE• PC (3) S.P.
2
�r �rr�
NIIIdUPEs
ARCH.IT�CIURAL OC[M�IISSI�T
Ng1RCI�i 22, 1988
Mr. Smith stated that the propased awning material is vinyl coated
and vanilla colored. The awnings will be located over each entrance.
CorYanissioner Druzy suggested that an awning was not the appropriate
architectural feature at this place on the building. She was
concerned about the collection of water on the awning.
It was motioned by Cc�ra�tissioner Sullivan, seconded by Ccx�nissioner
Drury to continue this case for further study with the direction
that an architect be consulted. Carried 4-0.
2. CASE ND• 1439 SA
APPLIC'ANP (ArID ADDRESS): PAI,MS TO PINES CANVAS, Pinyon Pines, P.O.
Box 69, Nbuntain Center, CA 92361.
1�1'iURE OF PROJDC.T/APPRaVAL SOtJC�iT: Approval of stationary awning
with signage.
I�(X'ATIOIV: 72-990 El Paseo.
7ANE• C-1
Ms. Sass indicated that the proposed awning is a vinyl material in
b�urgundy. The location was clarified to be at Priority Land Title.
Commissioner Drury suggested that the facia be held back 6" and
kept tight to the windows.
It was motioned by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Connnissioner
McC`rea to approved the color and material of the awning on the
condition that the facia be held back 6" and kept tight to the
windows. Carried 4-0.
3. CASE NO' PP 87-7
APPLICI�FP (ArID ADDRFSS): CT-iARLES MARTIN, 40-840 Thunderbird Road,
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270; LAUREL DEVELOPME:�]T 00., 2323 S.E. Main
Street, Irvine, CA 92714.
1�7.URE OF PROJDCP/APPROVAL SO[X��: Approval of �rking drawings
for 5280 square foot building expansion at RB Flzrniture.
I,OCATI0�1: 72-115 Highway 111 at Ranchr� Drive.
ZOI�• C-1
3
� �
NIIIVITPFS
ARQLIT�IURAL �NMISSIO�i
MARCH 22, 1988
It was motioned by Ca�anission Sullivan, seconded by Cannissioner
McCrea to give conceptual final approval on the condition that plans
outlining all changes be su�mitted to the camnission. Carried 4-0.
B. PY�2liminaYv P1aiL�:
1. CASE N0: PP 88-3
APPLICANP (ArID ADDRFSS): MARVIN-DAVID INVESTMQVTS, 345 El Portal,
Palm Springs, CA 92262; C�iARLES MARTIN, 72-757 FY�ed Waring Drive,
Palm Desert, CA 92260.
1�ZUE2E OF PRQJFX,T/APPR4VAL S�P: Conceptual Approval for a 15,450
Square foot retail building.
I�OC'ATIO�i: Southwest corner of El Paseo and Sage.
ZO�IE• G1
The commission was concerned with the building design being too
monotor�us.
Canmissioner Sullivan felt that additional variation in the elevation
and materials was needed to enhance to concept of this building. He
recanmended more variation in the raws of roof step-tiers.
Chairman GYegory asked if the tenants could modify their individual
storefronts. It was stated that they could only m�dify the 10 ft. of
glazed windaw area.
Mr. Fox stated his opposition to this project. He felt that it
should be denied, because it c�oes not promote E1 Paseo and could be
detrimental to other merchants. He felt that the design lacks
diversity and that the proposed signage area does not give tenants
room to create a unique storefront.
It was rec��nended that sane of the colunms be removed from the
front of the building to relieve the monotony of the building.
Mr. Freeman stated that he would be willing to let tenants modify
the storefronts on the condition that the tenants restore the
storefront to its original design if they move.
It was motioned by Conmissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner
McCrea to give conceptual approval subject to the following
conditions:
4
� �
NIIN[fl'F�
ARQ�iITE�i[JRAL �M�IISSIO�T
1�R(I�i 22, 1988
1. Restudy the roof and tiers
2. Restudy the placement of the colwrn�s
3. Restudy proposed signage area
4. Possibility of pulling the 10 ft. of glazed glass out
Carried 4-0.
1V. MISC�3,L71N�70[JS:
1. CASE 1V0• PP 88-2
APPLI('ANP (AI�ID ADDRESS): MARVIN-DAVID INVES'IME[VV`TS, 2901 S. Palm
Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262.
1�,Zt]RE OF PR0.7�CP/APPF2CIVAL SO[X�i`P'
I�OCATI�I: North side of El Paseo, between Sage Lane and Hwy 74.
ZCXVE: G1
Mr. Smith asked the ccnmission if they wanted to review revised
elevation plans, because of the deletion of the awning, which result
at the Plaruzing Camtiission meeting.
Because of the change each tenant will be responsible for obtaining
approval for an awning, but the building owner is required to
give each of the tenants an allowance for the installation of the
awning.
The cona►ussion would like to see revised elevation plans, so that
they can see the elevation of the building without the awning.
It was the consensus of the catmission that the changes w�ould be
shawn on the wr�rking drawings and approved as sulanitted if no changes
are required.
2. C'ASE NO• CJOC 88-1
APPLICANP (ArID ADDRFSS): IRVING FEIGER, 3574 Bogert Trail, Palm
Springs, CA 92264; FRANK WATERFALL, P.O. Box 2193, Palm Desert, CA
92261.
1�2[)RE OF PROJ�C.T/APP�L S(X]C�iT: Certificate of Conformance
for a 13 unit apartrnent complex.
5
� �
NIINUPF;S
ARQLITF7CItJRAL CCNNILSSIO�T
Ng1RQi 22, 1988
LOC'ATIO�T: 45-875 Ocotillo
ZONE• R-3 (3) S.P.
Mr. Drell showed the caranission pictures of the apartment canplex at
45-875 Ocotillo.
He indicated that the applicant is requesting a certificate of
canpliance because the corY►plex presently containing 13 units would
only be pern�it 12 units under current city standard.
It was motioned by Cannissioner Sullivan, seconded by Co�nissioner
Drury to continue this case so that co�rmissioners can visit the
complex. Carried 4-0.
3. CASE NiD: PP/CUP 86-50
APPLIC.ANT (AI�ID ADDRFSS): R.C. ROBERTS, 801 A Street, San Rafael,
CA 92901.
1�412t7RE OF PROJ�GT/APPROVAL SOUC��: Final landscape plans for 426
unit mobile h�ne/RV park.
LOCATIO�T: North side of FYank Sinatra Drive at the end of Del
Safari Drive.
ZC�IE• R-1-M
Mr. Smith advised ca�mission that this application had inadvertently
been left off the agenda. The commission could consider the
application if it deems it an �nergency and votes to consider it.
It was motioned by Car�nissioner Drury, secorided by Commissioner
McG`rea to consider the landscape plans on this case on an emergency
basis. Carried 3-0-1 (Chaizman GY�egory abstaining).
Mr. Gregory advised cannission that ttze plans have been revised to
widen the fairway and to use deciduous trees on the site. He then
described the proposed perimeter wall.
Conanissioner Dnazy indicated that the wall could be changed to
8-8-16 and 4-8-16, and that the sack finish could continue with the
indentation of the wall and painted on both sides.
It was recommended that the sack finish be put on slumpstone
material.
6
�" �
NiINttl'E��
ARCHITTf77CIUfiAL �SSI�t
N�,RQI 22, 1988
It was motioned by Commissioner Druzy, seconded by Cannissioner
Sullivan to give preliminary approval on the landscape plans subject
to detailed plans being submitted to the co�nission, and final
approval on the wall subject to the following conditions:
1. Use sack finish on a slumpstone material and continue it
with the indentation of the wall.
2. Reveals should be on street side of the wall be painted
dark green.
Carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Gregory abstaining).
V. �IDUC,TIl� OF FVIURE N�,TI1�S DISCUSSI�i:
Mr. Diaz indicated that the memorandum regarcling The Reorganization Of The
Architectural Review Ccmnission was prepared to assist in keeping the
meetings as structured and as short as possible.
Mr. Diaz i.ndicated that item 1 and 2 - deletion of the lunch study
session, was proposed to sY�orten the t�me limit of the conmission meetings
and start meeti.ng at 1:00 p.m.
It was the opinion of the caimission that the lunch study session sY�uld
continue, because agenda items can be reviewed and some approved by
minute motion at this time. They also felt that if the meetings were
started at 1:00 p.m. they would continue until 4:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Diaz suggested placing study session on the agenda as part of the
regular meeting. As such, the meetings can go from study session directly
into the regular meeting without having to wait until 1:00 p.m.
It was decided that the Architectural Review Ccx�ission meetings will
begin at 12:00 p.m. with study session, during this t�me no public
testimony will be taken. The agenda will be revised to shaw the change
in the meeting time as 12:00 p.m. and under Study Session it will read "No
Public Testimony".
Conunissioner Drury noted that staff and c�nissioners should not speak
with the audience during study session. Also, the audience should be
advised that public camients are not given at this time.
Item 3 - new or revised plans that staff has not reviewed prior to the
meeting canrzot be considered at the meeting, and will automatically be
continued to the next meeting.
7
� �
NIIN[TPFS
ARCHI�IUFiAL aCDT�SSI�i
Ng1RCI�i 22, 1988
Item 4 - all changes in final drawings (from preliminary plan approval)
shall be red lined on blue print.
Item 5 - Al1 cases shall be submitted to staff rio later than 9:00 a.m.
Monday, the week prior to the meeting.
Item 6 - The Architectural Review Conmission Secretary must have all
agenda items with staff rer.cnanendations by the Wednesday prior to the
meeting.
Item 7 - Precise plan applications must include elevations, site plans
and landscape plans.
VI. ORAL C�)NIG�,TI�1'S:
VI. .
The meeta.ng was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
� �
/
rZ-'C._,,�.�
�
R. SMITH, As i.ate Planner
/fr
8