The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-01-14 � '�' `i.ri� MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEN COMMISSI�i JANUARY 14, 1992 ft.��f.*f.��;ft.�.��#��.��.�s�#�:��.��f:��f.��.f*��....*�#�f��*** l. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:20 p.m. Commission Members Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ron Grec�ory, Chairman X I 0 Rick Hotden X 1 0 Frank Urrutia X 1 0 Chr�i s Van V 1 i et X 1 0 Kirby Warner X 0 1 Wayne Connor, Alternate X 1 0 Staff F'resent: Phil Orell Steve Smith Jeff Winklepleck Steve Buchanan Bob Smith Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to approve the minutes of the December 17, 1991 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 , Commissioner Connor abstaining. tii. It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the follaring cases by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. A. Final DraNings: 1. CASE NO. : PP 90-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DSL SERVICE CO. , 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 5000, North Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92658-6030 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOt1GHT: Approval of final working drawinUs for Ross and the inline tenant buildinc�s LOCATI�1: Fred Waring Orive and Highway 111 , � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEN COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. Steve Smith reported that the building department advised him that there were no chaneaes from the approved preliminary plans. He noted that the air conditioning unit on the back of the building appeared slightly above the parapet, however it was set back 20' to 25' from the edye and he did not feei it would be a problem. Motion carried 4-0-1 , Chairman Gregory abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: PP 90-24 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): AVANT GARDENS for ROBIN PLAZA, 984 W. Foothill Blvd. , Suite C, Upland, CA 91786 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to approved landscape plan LOCATION: Southeast cor�ner of El Paseo and Sage ZONE: C-1 Phil Drell presented revised landscaping plans noting that applicant was requestiny to down size some of the plantfng. This would include reducing the size of the palm trees from 21 feet to 15 feet and change the size of the boxes at �the entrance frnm 36 inch to 24 inch. He indicated that Eric Johnson feit i�he revised plan was acceptable. 3. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 89-3 APPI.ICANT (AND AODRESS): CUSACK RADAKER for KAISER GRILLE AND BAR, 41-995 Boardwalk. Suite F-1 , Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APi�ROVAL SOUGHT: Entry remodel of Desert Magazine Buildinq LOCATION: Southeast corner of Et Paseo and Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Phil Drerl presented plans for the entry rerr�del indicating that this entry was the south elevation of �the LG's Steakhouse buildiny. There was no signage �roposed as yet, however would eventually be placed an �the Highway 111 side of the canopy. Motion carried 4-U-1 , Chairman Gregory abstaining. 2 , � ;°ij�''' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEM! COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 d. CASE NO. : 3004 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RUTH'S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE c/o ARCHICON, Kristan Sigurdsson, 3636 No. Central Avenue, Suite 970, Phoenix, AZ 85012 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOIIGHT: Awnings for restaurant LOCATION: 7A-040 Hiyhway 111 ZONE: C-1 Phil Drell presented plans for the proposed awnings noting that there would be no signaye on �these awninys. Commission approved awnings subject to the deletion of the scailops. 5. CASE NO.: 378 C APPLICANT (AND AODRESS): SERENA D' ITALIA, 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 205. Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APF�ROVAL SOUGHT: Ap�roval of storefront and s i Unacae LOCATIOPI: El Paseo Collection North, Suite 5 ZONE: C-1 S.P. Commission approved storefront and signage as submitted. 6. CASE NO. : 377 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : IRI5 FOR EL PASFO, 73-061 E1 Paseo, Suite 205. Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of storefront and siynage IOCATIOM: E1 Paseo Collection Nortt�, Suite 6 ZONE: C-1 S.P. Commission approved storefront and signage as submitted. 3 , �rr;' w�' MIN�TES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 7. CASE NO. : 2096 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for EDITH MORRE' , Pinyon Pines, Box 6y, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECTtAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised awning with signage LOCATION: 73-690 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 S.P. Commission approved the original submiLtal , denying the proposal showing the two dome awninys on either side of the existing marquis awning. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 9t-15 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HOWARD BREIN CON5TRUCTION CO. , Post Office Box 3237, Palm Desert. CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL S�1GHT: Revised preliminary plans for four unit apartment complex LOCATIOFI: 73-805 Shadow Mauntain Drive ZONE: R-3 13,000 Steve Smith presented proposed �lans showing the changes made as requested by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association. Commission apF�roved the preliminary architectural plans only. C. Miscellaneous: 1. CASE NO.: 893 SF APPLICANT (ANO ADDRESS): OCHOA 8 ASSOCIATES, 69-844 Highway 111 , Suite B, Rancho Miraye, CA 9Z270 and MICHAEL BUCCINO ASSOCIATES, 74-133 E1 Paseo, Suite 9, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for the PITRUZELLI RESIDENCE PIATURE OF PROJECT/APPROYAL SOUGHT: Approval of 5 foot wall an firont elevation 4 . � �: MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIOhi JANUARY t4, 1992 LOCATION: 73-010 Calliandra Street Commission approved the 5 foot wall as submi�tted. 2. CASE NO.: 894 SF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MIGUEL CABALLERO for BAZIUK RESIDENCE, 653 No. Commercial Road, 5ui�te No. 1, Palm Springs, CA 9226Z NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 16' 8" single familY dweiling LOCATIOPI: 73-112 Bel Air Road Commission ap�roved plans for 16' 8" sinyle family dwelling as submitted. IV. CASES: 1. CASE NO. : 2095 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY for 99 CENT VIDEO. 46-120 Calhoun Street, Indio. CA 92201 NATURE � PROJECT/AF�PROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business identification signaye I.00ATION: 73-963 Hiyhway 111 ZONE: C-1 S.P. Steve Smith noted the commissions concerns with the removal of the existiny awning. The applicant, Jim Engle, reported that the owner of 99 Cent Video did not own the building and therefore could not make the archi�tectural chanaes to the building as suyaesi:ed by commission. Cnmmissioner Holden noted that the buitding was recently remodeled using the awning as an architectural feature. Commissioner Urrutia agreed, stating his concerns w i th the 1 ack of arch i�tecture i f the aw i ng was de 1 eted. Chairman Greyoury suggested that the applicant replace the cover on the awnina and provide some type of illumi�atinn on the inside of tt�e awning. The applicant felt that he would get rnore visibility if the awniny was removed. Commissioner Holden did not feel that the neon tubing in the sign pro�osal would add to the architecture of the buildinq. 5 . �.�r �r�' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMIMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Nolden, seconded by Commissioner Connor, �to deny �the reques�t as subm i tted as comm i ss i on fe 1 t the signage should fit in with the architecture of the building and removiny �the awninq would neyatively impact the design of the building. Mo�:ion carried 5-0. B. Preliminary Plans: l. CASE NO.: TT 26970 APPLICANT (AND ADORESSI = GARY DAUGHERTY/JOHN ERDMANN for MARIPOSA SPRINGS, 462 Graceland, Laguna Beach, CA 92691 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI SOU(�iT: Preliminary approval of revised preliminary plans for model homes, elevations, clubhouse and landscapiny LOCATION: North side of Country Club Drive opf�osite Marriott Desert Springs Z�IE: PR-5 Steve Smith presented colored renderings as well as revised elevations. The landscaping plan had been reviewed by Eric Johnson and he felt that it was acceptable. Commissioner Urrutia stated that the revised plans addressed the commission's concerns from the previous meeting. Commissioner Connor felt that the street side planting on the north side of the project appeared too ligh�t. The applicant noted that due to the blow sand condition in this area, he purposely avoided large planting on the north side of the project. Commissioner Connor added that the landscaping was also too light on Coun�trY Club Orive and Desert Springs Road. Commissioner Urrutia asked abo�t the details on the perimeter wall . The applicant indicated that there were no details on the watl as yet noting that it was being proposed as a partial retaining wall and slump stone. The wall would be 6 feet high on Lhe house side and approximately 3 feet on the street side. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with security along the 3 foot street side wall . The applicant noted 1:hat there would be a 50 foot space between the wall and the curb face. Commissioner Urrutia asked about 1:he possibitity of jogging the wall . The applicant felt that it could not be done because of the 6 . � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 slo�e, and therefore plan on using trees and shrubs to show some ins and ou�t, noting that the berm was quite high. Comnissioner Urrutia asked that the applicant show the details on the berm and how it relates to the planting. Commissioner lJrrutia asked about the f�arking use behind the water feature at the entry. The applicant noted that it would be used for sales office and rlubhouse parking. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns on the inadeyuate mounding behind the wa�ter element as you would be able to see the cars parked behind this nice water feature. Chairman GreUory sugges�ted adding a retaining wall at this location. Ac�t i nn: 1� was moved by Corixnissioner Connor, seconded by Chairman Gregory, to Urant preliminary approval of the overall comrnon areas, directiny �:he applicant to address the following: 1 ) Applicant to provide details showing how the moundiny rela�tes witF� the wall and the proposed planting. 2) Restudy perimeter wall addressing the security concerns and needed undulation. 3) RestudY landscaping plan on the north side of the project to r�rovide for additional plantiny. 4) Restudy mounding behind the entry water element to block view of the vehicles in the parking area. Moi:i on carr i ed 5-0. The applicant presented the landscaping plans and elevations for the individual homes notinea that some of the concrete treatments rnay need to be chanyed if the budget did not allow for this. Commissioner Connor discussed his concerns with some of the plan�t materials proposed. Commissioner Urrutia directed the appiicant to address the solar protection needed on the individual homes. Action: It was maved by Cammissioner Urr•utia, seconded by Commissioner Holc�en, to approve the architecture only on the three model homes r�resented and the clubhouse. The landscaping plans were continued for these locations. Motion carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO.: PP 91-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SCHMITZ/ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, Post Office Box 3592. Palm Desert, CA 92261 7 > �; � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI SOUGHT: Revised preliminary plans for 10 un i�t s i ny 1 e story apartment pro i ec�t LOCATION: 44-555 San Rafael Avenue ZONE: R-3 Jeff Winklepleck presented the revised plans noting the landscaping concerns from Eric Johnson. Mr. Johnson felt that the boi.tle trees in the 10 foot sideyards should be replaced with acacia salicinia and vines should be added along the interior courtyard walls. Commissioner Holden reiterated the commissions concerns on the straight roof structure. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns again on the amount of asphalt at the fr�ont of the pro�iect. The applicant, Harry Schmitz, noted that he would be adding enhanced paving in this area. After a lengthy discussion with the applicant the following action was taken. Action: It was moved by Chairman Gregory, seconded by Comnissioner Urrutia, to yrant preliminary approval to the revised plans subject to the following condit.ions: 1 ) Addition of enhanced paviny throughout front asphalt area. 2) Pool to be moved to the west at least 2 feet to provide for sufficient covered patio area. Tie roof together on the west side, continuiny i�; on the north side extending out to form the shade structure. 3) Widen planters in front area near garages to allow for additional planting. 4) Replace bottle i:rees in 10 foot sideyards with acacia salicinia. 5) Street trees to be increased from 15" to 24". 6) Addi�tion of vines on interior courtyard walis. Motion carried 5-0. 3. CASE NO.: PP 92-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : JAMES PALMER, Post Office Box 1027, Rancho Miraye, CA 92270; JAMES FETRIDGE, Post Office Box 1963, Patm Desert, CA 92261 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Pretiminary plans for a twn storv, 864� square foot, office building LOCATIOM: West side of Monterey Avenue, lOqO feei: south of Fred 8 � � � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW t�FiMISSION JANUARY 14, 1992 Wari�g Drive ZONE: O.P. Steve Smith presented the preliminary �lans stating that the applicant would be reyuired to provide for the parking lot conneci:ion to tt�e lot to the north. Commissioner Holden asked about the second story balconies, Mr. Smith reported that �the balconies would have t.o be constructed where the occupants would not be able to look from the second story balcony into the neighboring yards. Chairman Gregory noted that the balcony on the west elevation would need to be screened or shielded from the view of the neigtlbors yard. Comnissioner Urrutia discussed the city's reyuirements for trash enciosures. Cornrnissioner Urrutia sugges�ted undulat.iny the roof structure in some way to soften the building. He acided that by restructuring the balconies on the west elevation, it could help with the need for undulation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet. to continue the plans directiny the applicant to address the following: 1 } Restudy trash enclosure to meet city's recycte requirement. 2? Provide undulation throughout length of the building. 3) Restudy the use of additional materiat changes or use of different textures. 4) Restudy balconies on the west elevation. 5) Rear of the bu i 1 d i nU to be upgraded i n des i ean to show that this area is the entrance �.o the building. 6) Provide adequate yradiny for future easement �tie-in to adjacent parking area. Motion carried 5-0. V. AOJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2:5U p.m. , TEVE SMITH ASSOC[ATE PLANNER SS/db 9