The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-01-22 , 5 � lA l�l_L1Y�J 1 r�� PALM DESER'P ARQII�'I[)RAL REVIF�T ��SSI�1 2[7FSDAY, JANIJ�RY 22, 1991 **�x**�xjr*irit�r�t�r**�t�t�t***�r�t�x�r��*�r�r*��xx��***�r�r�r�r�r�r**�***�r�t�r*�r�x*�r*�r�r* I. CALL TO ORDIIZ: The meetirx� was called to order at 12:15 p.m. C�mission Members G'�rrent Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Gregory, Chairman X 1 1 Rick Holden X 2 0 FYank Urrutia X 2 0 Russell McCrea X 2 0 Christopher VanVliet X 2 0 Wayne Coru�or, Alternate X 1 1 Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Jeff Winklepleck Pat Bedrosian Catherine Sass Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MIIV[TI�S: It was moved by Commissioner VanVliet, seconded by Co�nissioner Urrutia, to apprave the minutes of the Januazy 8, 1991 minutes as amended. Nbtion carried 4-0-1, Connnissioner Conn�or abstaining. III. It was moved by Urnitia, s�eaarx�ed by ��rn•n;�;rn�r Md��e.a, to ap�sn❑ve the folla�r_i.r�g cases by mirnite m�ticai: 1. G�SE ND.: 1907 SA APPLICANT (AI� AL�RESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for VALERIE MILLER GALLERIES, Pinyon Pines, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92361 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SQ�iP: Appraval of illwninated awnings with signs LCX'ATI�i: 73-100 El Paseo, Suite A & C 7�: C1 S.P. 2. CASE NO.• 1$09 SA APPLIC;�INP (AI�ID ADDRFS.S): IMPERIAL SIGN CJOMPANY for SUNSHINE HARDWARE, 46-120 CalYx�un Street, Indio, CA 92201 'tirr+ �rrr' NIIIVItPES ARC�IITE7Ci[IRAL REVIEW �M�SSI�T JANIIARY 22, 1991 I�IZURE OF PROJE7CT/APPROVAL SO[]CC�iT: Approval of revised monument sign LOCATIQ[�i: 73-468 Highway 111 (N.W. corner San Pablo and Hwy. 111) ZO�: Cl S.P. Nbnument sign approved by minute motion subject to submission of an adequate landscaping plan for the area surrounding the sign. 3. (�SE I�J.: PP 91-1 APPLICANP (Al�ID ADDRESS): N1LA INVES'1�N'!'S, 40-840 Thunderbird Road, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 I�A7.[JRE OF PI�OJF](,T/APPRC7VAi. SOUC�P: Preliminary approval of mixed use carmercial project IAC'ATIo[�i: 2.1 acres southeast of R.B. F�rniture 7�• C-1 Case was continued at applicant's request. 4. CASE I�A.: PP 89-21 APPLICANP (At�ID A�RESS): ROGER BROOKS for PIZZA HUT, 80100 E. 22 North, Building 100, Wichita, Kan,sas 67226 1�'IURE OF PIt�J�C,T/APPRO�TAL SOUC��1T: Preliminazy architectural and landscape plans I,OCATIO�i: Pad #2, La Posada Developmerit 7�0[�: PC (3) S.P. Prel�minary appraval granted, by minute motion, subject to the east elevations being restudied in order to cut it back some and restudy tawer as discussed with applicant. 2 S � � 1'l_I_L`IlJ 1 r�� ARQ�TECi'[7RAL REVIE�T ��SSI�T JANtIARY 22, 1991 IV. CASES: A. Final Dra�rirx,�s: l. CASE N0.- 1902 SA APPLICANP (AI�ID ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CJONIPANY for VACATION INi�1, 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201 I�,ZURE OF PR�Ck717Cr/APPRUVAL SOUQ-�P: Appraval of revisions to sign Program L+OCATIO[�i: 73-960 Highway 111 7.0[�- PC (4) Staff concerns were with the bright orange color and the white background. The applicant noted that the existing signage in peach was fading, and this was the reason for the proposed orange. Actian• It was moved by Ca�missioner McCxea, seconded by Comnissioner Urrutia to apprave the signage using the follawing colors: Acrylite Ivory -- #0472 Plexi Glass Orange -- #2564 Plexi_ Glass GYeen -- #2030 Motion carried 5-0. 2. (�SE N0.• 1903 SA APPLICIINP (ArID ADDRFSS): MARY RODRIGUEZ c/o ACME WILEY C70RP, for WELLS FAR00 BANK, 7201 Haven Avenue, Suite E-187, Alta Loma, CA 91701 NA7.'[JRE OF PROJ�LT/APPI�DVAL SOi[X�P: Approval of new business identification signage I,OCATI�i: 74-105 El Paseo Drive Staff noted that the applicant was actually asking for one additional sign, and that the requested sign on the north side of the buildirig was r�n-conforming. Mr. Smith noted that the problem with the existing sign was that the sprinkler system needed to be repaired, and this should be done prior to adding any additional electrical equipnerit and signage. 3 �wr "�' MLi�AR'ES ARQ�ITF]Cl'�)RAi� REVIE�T ��SSI�i JANUARY 22, 1991 Action• It was moved by Catm.issianer Holden, seconded by Cannissioner Urrutia, to approve the illuminated monument sign and illuminating of e.xisting "Sign B, Elevation #4" as presented. Motion carried 5-0. B. PZ'elimina�ry P1ai1S: 1. CASE NO.: PP 90-29 APPLICANP (AI� AI�RFSS): TRAID PACIFIC DEVELOPNIENT CJORP. for HOVLEY CORPORATE CENTRE, 74-923 Hovley Lane, Suite 130, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECP/APPRaVAL SQ�: Prel�m�na� approval of architectural plans for camiercial project I+OCATIOI�i: Northeast corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street ZCa�: C-1 Commissioner Urrutia felt that the specific requests made by catmission at prior meetings on this project were r�ot met except for the additian of the Cook Street elevations. He noted their main concern was the need for 2' or 3' averhangs. The applicant, Mr. Riccardi, felt that the use of the mirrored glass would aleviate the need of the overhangs. Camtissioner Holden added that another it�n of concern was that the 9" of undulation on a 168 foot building w�.ild rx�t work. Commissioner Urrutia asked why there was a problem with providirig roof averharigs to get some added depths to the building. Mr. Riccardi replied that he w�ould be happy to add the suggested averhangs. Mr. Riccardi informed catmission that the one-story elevations along Cook Street were not being submitted at this point. Comnissioner Holden felt that the one-story elevations weuld help to break up the back of the building. Calmissioner Connor asked about the likelihood of running into the same problem with this building as with the Sunrise Building, on the same street, who had to eventually request the addition of awnings to their building because of the sun and heat factor. Mr. Riccardi assured the catmittee that he w�uld not have to ask for awnings in the future with the use of the heat mirrored glass. 4 i..a r.r� � ARQiITE�iURAL REVIEW Q'M��IISSI�i JANUARY 22, 1991 Conrnissioner McCrea rioted that the study provided by the applicant ;n�;cated that Sperry reported a 5� to 7& energy consezvation with this mirrored glass. Cannissioner Holden asked if a blanket condition could be placed on the appraval stating that awnuzgs would not be allowed on this building at a future date. Camtissioner Urrutia asked about averhangs on the first floor. Mr. Riccardi noted that sane of the windaw wall could be set back 3 feet on the first floor. Catmissioner Urrutia felt that this was not the solution, and thought the applicant needed to take a better look at the first and second floor incorporating the concerns noted by the camnission. Action• It was moved by Caim.issioner McCrea, seconded by Caimissioner VanVliet, to grant conceptual appraval of the architectural plans only with the follawing conditions: 1) The overhangs be incorporated on both the roof and lawer levels. 2) Commission did not include the four buildings along Cook Street, as shov�m on revised plans, as pa.rt of their approval. 3) Applicant to return to commission with exact color samples Motion carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO.: TT 24984-1 APPLICANP (AND ADDRESS): SUNLITE DEVELOPNMENN'T, INC., 77-622 Country Club Drive, Suite "V", Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECP/APPROVAL SO�JGHT: Approval of plans and elevations for lots 1-53 of TT 24984 LOCATIO[�i: West side of Deep Canyon, south of Fred Waring 7�1E: PR-5 Mr. Smith reported to cannission that staff's cancerns included the height of the buildirigs and lack of solar protection afforded by the arcYu.tecture. He r�ted that the property was zoned PR. This zone states a maximiun of 18' for single family YxxYies. Staff recommended that the north, south and east sides shpuld be consistent with existing units (14-16 feet in height) . With regard to solar protection, there are 104 lots, and 80� of these lots are oriented east and west. 5 � � N1I�RtPFS ARCfIITF]Cl[JfiAL RE,UIII�i �T�SSIQ�i JAI�AJP►RY 22, 1991 A representative for Sunlite Developnerit, Mr. Gordon Paulus, reported that a survey was d�e an the streets adjacent to the property as well as the property awners an Goleta Street. This survey created a petition stating their approval of the elevations, and the height of 20'9" bei.ng acceptable. Mr. Paul Dewey, President of Sunlite Developnent, presented the site plan for the project. Camlissioner Holden asked why there would be a probl�n in reducing the height to the city's limit of 18 feet. Mr. Dewey replied that there was a misunderstanding on the height limit when the plans were first bei.ng designed. Commissioner Urrutia noted that in most cases where the Architectural Review Catmission approved the extra height, the applicant was able to canvince the cannissian why the extra height was needed. Mr. Dewey noted that the major reason for the extra roof heights was to create the look of a larger house fn�xn the inside. Steve Smith added the cancern of the grade difference between the proj ect and the adj oining properties. He added that if the applicant was going to go with an excess of an 18' height on the houses, they would have to return to the planning commission, which staff would not support, to delete the conditions that relate to the height (Conditions 4 and 5). Camnissioner Holden rioted the probl�n with exposure on the units runnirig east and west. Mr. Dewey replied that a special glazing glass was to be used that would reduce the heat by 18.2$ on the windaws and 28.5$ on the patio doors. Cannissianer Holden felt that the windaws w�ould still need sane type of protection. He added t,hat the protection on the major windaws � the east and west elevations could be cbne with trellis wr�rk or cavered patios which would enhance the look. CaYmissioner Holden discussed the location of the fireplaces with respect to setbacks. Calmissioner Urrutia felt that what the applicant was trying to do is good; l�owever, all the things they are looking for could be acr�c�mplished in the 18' height limit. He also felt that there was still a need for sane type of solar protection. This should be an integral part of the design. Caimissioner Urrutia felt that additional overhangs around the houses vaould enhance the building design. CaYmissioner VanVliet agreed, and did riot see the need to go abave the 18' limit. 6 � � NIIIVtTI'FS ARC�IITECI[�1L RE.VI�T �T�SSI�T JAN[TARY 22, 1991 Action• It was maved by Catmissioner Urrutia, seconded by Cannissioner McCSrea, to grant conceptual appraval of the plans and elevations subject to the maxiirnun height bei.ng 18 feet in every case and further study to be done on the elevations to incorporate adequate solar protection. Motion carried 5-0. Camtissioner Holden reminded applicant that the main concern was with the east and west elevations and the major glass areas. Camtissioner Urrutia added that they are looking for 3' to 4' averhangs, r�t the 9" averharigs as proposed. 3. C�,SE IVI�.• PP 90-24 APPLICAN'P (AND ADDRESS): JAMES WALLER c/o RIC�-1ARD FISC�R ARC�iITECrURE for MALAGA SQUARE, 75-140 St. Charles Place, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECP/APPROVAL SQX�r: Pr'el i mi nary appraval of architectural plans only IACATIO[�i: Southeast corner El Paseo and Sage 7�: Cl Applicant, Richard Fischer, presented revisecl architectural plans. Catmissioner Urrutia thought they were a vast improvement; hawever, was concerned with the architecture only applying to the front of the building. The Sage Lane side of the builduzg did rlot seem to be included with the rest of the building. Cannissioner Urrutia also questioned the heavy tile tawer at the front of the building. Ca�missioner Connor expressed his concern on haw far the building was pushed back leavirig a snall sidewalk. Mr. Fischer rioted that the sidewalk would actually be about 1' wider than the existing walk. Action: It was maved by Catmissioner Urrutia, seconded by Ca�missioner VanVliet, to grant oonceptual approval of the architecture plans with the follaaing conditions: 1) The west elevatian to be restudied extending the elemP.nt to the corner of the building. 2) Restudy tile tawer. 3) Clarify the east elevation as far as code requiremP_nts. Motion carried 5-0. 7 � � D�IIIVtTI'ES AR(�IIT1��CI�JRAL REVI�T �T�SSI�i JANUARY 22, 1991 4. CASE 1�U.• PP 90-28 APPLICANP (ArID ADDRESS): P�"Y AMES, 82-500 Highway 111, Suite 3, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJEG`P/APPROVAL 9C�X�P: Prelimiriary approval of architectural and landscaping plans for 6,450 square foot office building LOCATI�i: Southeast corner of Acacia and F`red Waring Za[�• R-1 (Proposed 0.P. ) Phil Drell reported that the building was pushed forward to allow additional parking in the back of the building. Applicant discussed revised elevations. Ca�m.issioner Connor's only concern on the list of r�ations received fran public va�rks depart�rit was Item No. 4 (use of Prosopis alba, P. glandulosa and Chilensis). He suggested the use of other plant materials. Action: It was moved by CamLissioner McCrea, seconded by Ca►�Lissioner VanVliet, to grant prel�►ninary appraval of the plans subject to further landscaping study being done in conformance with suggestions listed by public works departrnent, with the exception of Item No. 2. Ca►�dssion suggested that other alternative plant material besides Chaemeroips hwnilis be utilized. Motion carried 5-0. C. Ack3ed Ager�d2i Items: 1. C�SE ND.- 1909 SA APPLICANP (A�►i�D ADDRES.S): CHIEF SIQV GRAF.PS for TARBEL REALTORS, 85-591 Highway 111, Coachella, CA 92236 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification signage I�OCATICJi�i: 73-261 Highway 111 Phil Drell noted that the applicant was askirig to replace the existing signage with a red lettered sign with a white background. 8 _ � � NIIN[tPES ARC�IITF7�I[]RAL REVIEW �NMISSI(�T JANI�Y 22, 1991 Actian: It was moved by Cannissioner Connor, seconded by Cann.issioner Urnztia, to approve the signage subject to the use of a deeper red or rust color with an ivory background. Nbtian carried 5-0. V. The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. T SMI ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 9