Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-26 MINUTES PALM DESERT OSTKIISSION 9UMM - SE'i'MM 26, 1989 12:00 P.M. ADMUNISTRATIVE SERVICES ROOM 73-510 FRED WARM DRIVE I. The meeting was called to order at 12:20 p.m. C.atmission Members Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 17 0 Mazy Drury % 16 1 Russell McCrea X 16 1 Rick Holden X 17 0 Steve Sullivan X 14 3 Others Present: Steve Smith Catherine Sass Phil Joy Pat Bedrosian Brent Conley Donna Bitter It was moved by C,omnissioner Dreary, seconded by Cantussioner Holden to approve the minutes of September 12, 1989, as submitted. Carried 5-0. II. Moved by Holden, seconded by Oomniss_icner McCrea to approve the following cases by nnz rte motion. Carried 5-0. 1. CASE NO.; 1618 SA APPLICANT (AMID ADDRESS): D'CRNRLES, 73-151 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL Sp[X,M: Approval of awnings with signage LOCATICNt: South side of E1 Paseo ZCNE: Cl S.P. 2. CASE NO.: 881-SF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARY LOU GROUSE, 16 Leon Way, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of single family home over 15' height w/landscaping LOCATION: Edgehill Drive ZONE: R-1 MM4UTFS ARCHITECTURAL OOMMISSICN SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 3. CASE NO.; PP89-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDEM.S): HARVEY MILLER, 74-818 Joni Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings UOXATIC N: Southeast of Crook Street and Sheryl Avenue ZONE: S.I. Approved with the conditions that the parapet be raised or the roof system be lowered to conceal roof mounted equipment, and that the landscape plans be adjusted as pallet contains plants that are not desert oriented. 4. CASE No.; TT 24591 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAM ALACANO, 2015 Terrace Circle, Elko, NV 89801 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of 16 single family hones, architecture without landscaping. LOCATION: Hovley Lane ZONE: PR-5 5. CASE NO.; TT 23929 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION, 747 Eugene Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape plans LOCATICN: Desert Falls ZONE: PR 3.5 6. CASE NO.; TT 22690 APPLICANT (AND A ECESS): TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION, 747 Eugene Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 2 DU14TIPES ARCHLTEUIURAL COMMISSION SEPTII�BER 26, 1989 NATURE OF PRWECP/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of landscape plans LOCATION• Desert Falls ZONE: PR 3.5 Chairman Gregory abstained on Items 5 and 6 III. CASES: A. Final Drawings 1. CASE ND.;- 1623 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ELIZABETH PIERCE, 73-330 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 INURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SO[XW: Approval of awning with signs LOCATION: 73-330 El Paseo ZONE: C1 S.P. Applicant was not present. Commission felt the awning was unappropriate for the building. It was moved by Commissioner Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to deny the request. Carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP88-10 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHARLES MARTIN, 40-840 Thunderbird Rd., Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of landscape plans for a 19,000 sq. ft. office project LOCATION: S/W of Fred Waring and San Luis Drive ZC NE• O-P Chairman Gregory felt the plans were magnificent. It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Comnissioner Sullivan to approve the landscape plans as submitted. Carried 5-0. 3 NNW 1"WW NIINLHES ARC[IITBC'TURAL COMMISSION SEPTEMER 26, 1989 3. CASE NO.; 1624 SA APPLICANT (AM AMRESS): AMERICAN HAIRLINES, 73-640 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PRUJEC,T/APPFWAL SO[ W: Approval of awning and sign LOCATION: Parking lot side of Grapevine ZONE: Cl S.P. Applicant was requesting permission to install a terracotta colored awning with 8" white lettering which had been previously installed at another location. Laura Landgrebe, owner of American Hairlines, informed cannission that this awning is in excellent condition, being stored at another location until approval is received. Mr. Smith noted that the color of the building was a light beige. Commissioner Drury felt that the awning would actually become a flat sign, not an awning, and would not conform with the architecture of current building. Chairman Gregory asked applicant to present an accurate and current drawing redesigning the awning to conform with the architecture of building. He would like to see a return, or wings, on the new proposed awning. Applicant noted there would be no place for the returns, as the windows continue up the entire building. Chairman Gregory also stated that if the awning was widened, it would fit in more with the building. Mr. Smith asked to continue the case to the next meeting, and asked applicant to bring pictures of existing awnings on the building. It was moved by Ccmnissioner Drury, seconded by Ctmuissioner McRea to continue the case to the next meeting. Carried 5-0. 4. CASE NO.; 1212 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RENZO'S BISTRO, 73-725 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PFKXJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of additional signage on existing awning 4 NII14UPES ARCHITECTURAL OCM ISSIM SEEPrE BER 26, 1989 I=TICN: 73-725 El Paseo ZONE: Cl S.P. Ms. Mi.ncn Sorrentino, owner of Renzo's Bistro, felt that the existing sign on the awning is not visible enough, and would like it to stand out more. Chairman Gregory felt the existing sign was very tasteful, and explained to applicant haw the city is trying to avoid large signs. Ms. Sorrentino asked commission if she could have a sign inside the window, as well as the existing awning. Ccmmission told her there would be no problem with that, as long as it stayed in the perimeters allowed, or is set back at least 3' from the window. Commissioner Drury felt the sign was very visible, day or night. Moved by Ccmmissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner McCrea to direct applicant to review additional sign proposals with Mr. Smith. Carried 5-0. Ms. Sorrentino withdrew her request for additional signs on the awning. 5. CASE NO.: 1625 SA APPLICAw (AMID ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, Pinyon Pine, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92301 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPFDVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage LOCATION: 73-468 Highway 111 ZONE: Cl S.P. Mr. Smith advised commission that the applicant, Ernie Brooks, was requesting an 8' high awning in burgundy and ivory. Commissioner Drury asked the applicant if the awning was to be lighted and if it had a false bottom. Applicant advised that is was lighted and did have a false bottom. Chairman Gregory asked if the awning had to be the full 8 feet high. The applicant replied that it could be reduced to a 6' awning by leaving a 2' blank space at the bottom of the awning along the fascia. He explained the 8' high awning would be necessary if they wanted the awning to reach from the fascia extending up to cover the roof mounted equipment. 5 ARCHITECTURAL Or MISSION SEPrE BER 26, 1989 Chairman Gregory inquired .as to what will happen with the fabric awning once it starts to deteriorate. Applicant stated that the fabric was guaranteed by the manufacturer (DuPont) for five (5) years against fading, rotting, etc. He also rooted that the fabric was very easy to clean. Commissioner Sullivan noted that as presented, the awning would cross the west property line. The applicant noted that the current owner owns the property adjacent to this location. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the owner would have to go through the long, involving process of removing the property line if this awning was approved as proposed. Applicant indicated he could adjust the return to stay inside the property line. Commissioner Drury stated that she had a problem with this awning, because it would be located on the lower side of Highway 111, and she didn't really like the height and the actual look itself. She recoamended that the applicant maybe speak to the council members individually, but assured him that the council would be shocked if this awning were presented to them as submitted. Mr. Smith felt that if the commission was not comfortable with the proposed awning, they should so state and deny the request. The applicant could then appeal the denial and bring it before the council. It was moved by Chairman Gregory to approve the request as submitted. Motion died for lack of second. It was moved by Commissioner McCrea, seconded by Ccmmissioner Drury, to deny the proposal as presented with the reasons being that the awning was too large and the fact that it would be lit up too much from underneath. Conm_-ission felt the proposed awning would be excessive and overpowering. In addi- tion, they felt that a structure of this size was no longer an awning, but rather a major architectural feature. Carried 4-1 (Chairman Gregory opposing). 6. CASE NO.; PP-89-5 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NARENDRA PATEL for S.W. Plaza, 69-730 Highway 111, Suite 118, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 NATURE OF P1OJEX.r/APP1VVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary architectural and landscape plan approval 6 �r ARCEIITECIURAL COMMISSIONI SEPTE BER 26, 1989 LOCATIGI: Southwest corner Highway 111 and Lupine Lane ZONE: C1 S.P. Mr. Smith briefly outlined the proposed office building proposal. Connission expressed concern with the site plan as approved by planning commission. Commissioner Holden noted that if the slip ramp was closed, the only way people using E1 Doroado Bank and Baskin Robins could exit would be out of the applicants parking lot. Mr. Smith advised commission that the site plan represented a compromise of the city's goal to implement the super block concept, the business owner next door and the applicant. Chairman Gregory thought the applicant should enlarge the trees in front of the building. Commissioner Drury was concerned about how the signage would be handled as new tenants moved in. She felt this issue should be paid close attention to before approving final plans. Mr. Patel felt that since the entire bottom floor would be one medical office, the only concern would be for the second floor. Chairman Gregory felt that if the building was pulled back three feet on the south and east side, access to the building would be more feasible and landscaping could be added in that the present areas are too small to allow the installation of the material shown. It was moved by Commissioner Drury, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan to send the case back to the applicant to restudy it with attention to the landscaping on the east side of the building, signage concerns that the oc mission has, and pedestrian circulation. Carried 5-0. 7. CASE NO.; ADJ 89-5 APPLICANT (AND AMRESS): ROBERTA HALL, Post Office Box 4061. Palm Desert, CA 92260 INURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGU: Variance to the front yard set back of 6' to provide for carport/shade structure 7 NOW MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL COMISSICN SEP'I MER 26, 1989 LOCATION: 74-443 Driftwood Drive ZCNE. R-3 (3) Catherine Sass informed commission that Mr. Diaz had asked to bring this case before the commission to receive its recommendation on the carport structure. Cammissioner Holden informed applicant that all carport cases brought before the commission have been instructed to have some type of wood border or beefing it up in some way. The applicant suggested that she might install slunpstone around the columns to conform to the building. Commissioner Sullivan noted that she would not have enough roan in the car spaces to add slummpstone to the posts, and added that she would have maintenance problems, as the cars would constantly be hitting the poles. Commissioner Drury stated that the city policy has always been that these carports be treated with wood to make them more substantial. It was moved by Commission Drury, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan, to approve the request with the conditions that the applicant uses a more finished material wrapped around the horizontal elements, and the depth for the fascia would be a minimum of 8" and painted compatible to the building. Carried 5-0. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Ste e Smith, Associate Planner /db 8