The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-03-24 . �rr� �' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1992 �**�*��.�.***�*��}��*�*f*�***��.*********,.�**��*��+��*�*��.***�**.***��►�*�� I . CALL TO ORDER The meet.i nq was ca 1 1 ed t:o order dt�. l 2:2(1 �.m. Commissivn__Members Curt�ent Meetina Year to Date Pre.sen� At�seni: Preserit Absen1. Ron Greaorv. Chairmdn X 4 t R i c k Ho 1 di�n X 5 0 Frank Urrutia X 3 2 Chris Van Vliet X 5 0 Wavne Connor, Alternate X 4 1 St.aff Present: Phil Dreli __�__.____. Steve 5m i th Jeff W i r�k I ep 1 eck St�ve Buchanan Donnd Bitter I [ , APPROYAL OF MINUTES: li� was moved by Commissianer Van Vliet, seconded k�y Commissioner Nold�n. to �r�r�rove the minutes of March 10, 1992 meetiny as submirt�d. Mot.i�an carried 2-0-1 , Commissioner Connar abstaininy. flf . It Was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to aaprove the folloaring cases by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. A. Final Orawings: l . CASE NO. : 3032 SA APPLICANT (AND ADORESS) : IMF'ERIAL SIGN C0. far SUPER CUTS, 46- 120 Calhoun Street, Indio. CA y2201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Apc�raval of revised business i r�ent i f i ca t i on s i canaUe IOCATION: 72-624 El Pasea ZONE: C-1 S.F'. Steve Smi th r�ported thet tr�e corr�n i ss i on r�ad Urev i ous 1 y a�t�roved ttie s i gn�c�e reduc i ny the �e�r.t�r s i ze to t 4". The app 1 i can�t w�s nc>w r�efore t.he commissic�n requestir7g that they cut �hrouyh the arct�i tecturd 1 fieatut�e on t_he bu i 1 c�i ny over kt�e er�k.rance to a 1 1 i�w fc�r 1_.t,e 18" let.t.ers. Cc.>irxnissior� apUroved �h� r•evised plan as su�mil:t.��i. bv minute rnotion. � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1992 2. CASE NO. : CUP yl-ll APPLICANT (AND ADORESS) : AVANT GARDENS for MAPLE LEAF PLUMBING, 16U East "C" Street, Upland. CA 9l7$6 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Appr�oval of final landscaUing alan LOCATION: 44-865 Santa Ynez ZONE: R-3 Commission ar�r�roved the finai landscape plan, by minute motion. subiect to approval from Eric Johnson on the irrigation plan. 3. CASE NO. : PP/CUP 89-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CUSACK RADAKER for EL PASEO FINANCIAL CENTER. 4t-995 Boardwalk. 5uite F-1 , Palm Desert. CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: ApUroval of final landscaUinca and parkwav LOCATION: Highway 111 at EI Paseo ZOPlE: C-1 S.P. Phil Urell uresented the revised c�lans noting the suggested chanyes by Eric Johnson. Commission approved the final landscape ulans. by minute rnotion. subject to the incorporation of comments from Eric Johnson as no�ted on plans , which would include substitutiny washinytonia filifera along the Hiyhway 111 frontage area to allow for a wider planter area. Sidewalk would need to be shifted toward Lhe parking curb. 4. CASE NO.: 3035 SA APPIICANT (AND ADDRESS) : HOWTON SIGNS for ROGER DUNN GOLF, 68- 704 Perez Road, Cathedrai City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business identification siynaye LOCATION: 77-682 Country Club Drive, Suite A-13 ZONE: 2 � � M[NUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1992 Steve Sm i t.h i nr�i cated t.hat. the duu 1 i cant h�ad a two part i�equest. Or�e reca��est was F�r siynaye for Rager Ounn Galf and the other would be for siynaye for the adiacent. business. RoUer Dunn Golf was �skinU for reverse chann�l letters with gold faces on one side anc� nan-illuminat:ed foam letters on the west side of 1:he buildiny. 1"hev rec�uested t�w� s i yns on t.he west s i de ofi the bu i 1 d i ny. Commi ss i oner Cannor fe 1 i, i t. was not. necessary t.o p 1 ace 2 s i gns on the wes�t side. Commission �paroved �tt�e Rager Dunn Gnlf signaye as submit.t.ed subject. t.o only one siyn on the west elevation and it is tn be centered. TF�e second r�equest. was for a�?prova 1 of t.he same s i gn prograrri on thE buildiny to the east of Roger Dunn for fu�ture tenants. Comm9 ss i on apG�r�ved i�he same s i gnage r�royrarri for t,he bus i ness �n tt,e East side of Roger Dunn Golf to be used for future tenants. 5. CASE NO. : PP '�0-13 APPL[CANT tAND AODRESS) : USL SERVICE CO. . 3501 Jarn�oree Road. Sui�te 5QOU, North 7ower, Newr�or�t C3each, CA �265$-61130 NATURE OF PROJECTLAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Final pldn approval for s�teilite nads LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive and Hiyhway 111 ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. Steve Smit.h r�resen�.ed finai ptans no�ing that there were no exterior chanyes on �thE pac� elevati�ns. Commissinn �ppr�ved the �i r�a 1 ra 1 ans, by m i nute mo�i on, w i i:h the cond i i:i on that a corn i ce det�il be added on the screen wall of Buildiny E, facing Highway 1 1 ] . Mot i on cdr�r i ed 3-f). 6. CASE NO. : 2095 SA APPIICANT (AND ADDRESS) : SIGNS BY BUI_L for 99 CENT VIREO, 83-480 Avenue 45, Un i�t 1�i. I nd i o, CA 922U 1 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Awning with 5iqnage LOCAT[ON: 73-`�63 Hiyhway 111 3 � � M[NUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCN 24, 1992 ZONE: C-] �.P. Pt�i 1 Ure 1 1 r�reseni:.ed i.he p 1 ans not.i ny 1:.r�a�. i:he app 1 i cant. wa� submittinc� an architectural detail as they were tryiny to create the look of a t:heatre marquis. Calors would be light. and dark blue. Mr. Dr�ll suygested �that the entire front should be r��i nteci. Tt�e "9`.3 Cent" 1 et.�er i ny wou 1 d be 26 i nches w i th "V i deo" at 20 inches. Cnrnrn i ss i oner Ho 1 den fe 1 t i�t�at. th i s propasa 1 cou 1 d not be considered an architectural element as it is a structure that c��1 c� �ie rerr�aved at any t.i me. He f e 1 t tt7a�: i f the structure cou 1 d encompass �and screen �the exisking fixtures alona the front of the bu i 1 d i ng i t wou 1 d be accep�.ab 1 e. He acided thaj: i t. needed to i,i e into the buiidiny more. Commissianer Connor discussed how the sfi.ruct.ure could extend across �he entire front. Commissioner Van V1ie�t felt �the light b1u� was acceptable but c�id nc�t. feel t.Pre darker blue was necessary. Steve Smith showed where �tt7e neon str i p wou 1 d be G 1 acec� across tP�e bottom and i n the copy. Commission cont:inued i:he reauest direc�ing the apqlicant i.o create more of an architectur��l feature. Commission suggested continuine� the awning st:ructure around the front of tt�e building. 7hey also re<au i red de�ta i 1 s on co 1 ors and mater i a 1 s used to ou t 1 i ne the "y`3 Cen�." s i gnaye. B. Preliminary Plans: l. CASE NO. : HDP 92-1 APP�ICANT (AND ADORESS): WAYNE CARLTQN CONNOR 8 ASSOCIAT�E5 for MR. AND MRS. SC07�T 50HN, �4-267 Monterey Avenue, P�lm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of �retiminar�y 1 andscar�e r�1 an LOCATION: Wesi of Pdlm Valley Starm Char�nel south of the bridge a�t Tt7rush Roaci ZONE: Si.eve Sm i t.P� not.ed t.Y�at. i.he r�1 ans had been �eforc t.he cornm i ss i on carlier and they had �sked for a more natural landscaping look. He added j_.ndt. �r,e ��1 ans had gone before the p 1 ann i ny corr�rri i ss i on 4 � � M[NUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24, 1992 and i.r�e s i t.E r�i an had been a 1�.ered as the app 1 i cant had rece i ved dn additional 33' �fi property alony the channel . Commissioner Ccannor not.ed t.r,dt �:r,e K>1 an d i d n�t ref 1 ec� t.he grad i ng chanqes; however, f:he current yr�3d i ny p 1 an c�i d. Camm i ss i on e�ranted K�re1iminary ap�roval the landscape plans as submitted. Motion �:arried 2-0-1 , Commissianer Connor abstaininy. Z. CASE NO. : CUP 20-83 Amendmeni:. No. 3 APPL[CANT (AND ADDRESS) : SEAN a�atl & ASSOCtATES for B.F3. 0'BR[EN'S. [NC. , 73-190 El Paseo. Suite 3, Palm Desert CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROYAL SOUGHT: Preliminary archil.ectural p1ans for addition �f second story terrace LOCATION: 72-185 Painters Path ZONE: C;-1 Jeff Winklepleck r�resented the p1ans on t.he revised elevat.ions not. inca that �the apnlicant was requesting access to rhe secon� st.orv. He added �:hat the t�ea 1 th code r�equ i red tY�e canor�y aver the bar �3rea. Carnmissioner Holden noted that. when 1-.he a�plicant revdmr�ed their Uark i nc� 1 ot ancl �dded an outdoor pa�t i o e�r1 i er they d i d not r.>rov i de add i t.i ona 1 park i ny spaces and they are now ask i ng for an outdoor bar without additional parking spaces ayain. Mr. Drell noted t.hat. the a�G>1 i cant. had a 1 ong term ayreernent w i Lh the off i ce bu i 1 d i na on �th� corner to use the i r park i ny 1 ot after 4:00 p.m. He addeci thai. t.hey had a ten year agreement, but with t.he apprnvai of this second story access theY would be required a reneyot.i�te a Z5 year ayreement. Comm i ss i oner Ho 1 cien had no concerns w;tr, i�he �rcriitecture, �iust the parkiny issue. Steve Buchanan noted that the F>arking agreement was adc�ressed when they received approvai ofi the expansion and this second storY access was just �the second pP�ase of t.t�i s approva 1 . SL-eve E3uchanan added �:t��a�: the app 1 i cant. wou 1 d be 1 i m i ted to 25% of the downst�irs car�acity to the toa r.errace because of the lack of handicap access. Commission yrdnt.eci prel irninary appraval �:ra i.he revised �rchitectural plans as submitted. 5 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 24. 1992 C. Miscellaneous Cases: 1 . CASE NO. : 77 2�J984 APPL[CANT (AND ADDRESS) : SUNL]TE qEVELOPMENT, INC. , 77-622 CounL-r.y Club Urive. Suite "V", Palm Des�rt, CA y22�0 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPi20VAL SOUGHT: A�proval of l8' sinqle farnily home in "The ��rove" LOCATION: West sidE� of D�eca Canyon, south of Fred Wariny ZONE: PR-5 Commission aU�roved t-he K�lans ��r t.he 18' home as submit.t.ed. 2. CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : PAUL REGEN, 815 Calle Quetzal , Palm Sprinas. CA 92267 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: A�proval of single farnily home of 16' h i c�h LOCATION: d3-730 San Pascual ZONE: R-1 Commission qranted apprc�val to the plans for the lEi' hame as subm i ttc�d. IV. CASES: A. Preliminary Plans: l . CASE 1�. : T�T' 24`Lt37 APF�ICANT (AND ADDRESS): T.R.A. ARCHITECTS. 19Q0 E. Tahqiaifi.z Canvon. Na1m SArinc�s, CA 92263 NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Ap��'oval c�f r�vis�d r�r�lirninary architectural and landscapinc� plans LOCATION: Deer� Canyon Road, north nf Fred Waring Drive 6 � � MtNUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCH 2d, 19r32 ZONE: PR-5 Cornm i ss i oner Connor report.ed i.ha�. i n i.Pie pasi, the comm i ss i an I-�ad recauired that t/3 ofi the models provide a w�3ter effiicient plan and noted t.hai. d 1 1 t.hree rnode t s sr�own su�pl i ed on i y standard l�ndscapinca plans. He added that c�ne af the plans should comply w i tf� a dr i p i rr i gei:i on syst.em. Mr. Drel 1 reF�ort.ed that: the concern ofi the commission from the last meetiny was the shadeless w i ndows and i:.he auc�1 i cant. was ask i ng to contro 1 t.h i s w i t.h i nter i�r drapes. Conxnissioner Urrutia fe1�t that this was no�t an acceptat�ie metP�od af s�lar control . He not.�d that we have severe summers and f=e1t thdt �the �alass neede�� to be protected, He added that t�he aF��1 i cant needed to cons i cier oi_her means af K>r�tect i<>n on these homes, Commissioner Urruti� felt tt7ar. this w�s a very important issue as it. credt.ed ��rablems for the consumer and he did not. think this was ar�propriate. Aciion: � It. wes maved bv Commissioner Holden, sec�nded by Commissianer Urrutia, to grant conceptual approvc3l the plans dir�ctiny the �p�lic:ant. t.o �ddress cc�mmission's concerns c�n solar protection dnd provir�E one draught toleranr landscapiny plan in their mndels. Mot.i on carr i ecJ 4-(i. 2. CASE NQ. : NN 9'Z-1 APPL[CANT (AND ADDRESS) : JAMES PALMER. Post Office Box 1027, R�r�ch� M i racae. CA 92270; �JAMES FETRIDGE, Post Off i ce Box 1963, Palm Desert, CA y2260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAI. SOUGHT: A�pr�avat of preliminary 1�andscap i na p 1 ans LOCATION: West. s i de af Mc�nterey Avenue, l 00U feet sout:h of Freci W�rin« Drive ZONE: 0.F'. Commissianer Connor indicat.ed thai. the C�lan nceded mor� detail . He �dded that the parkiny lot plan did not compl.v with tht city's u 1�nt.i ny requ i remeni:.s and i nfarmed �r�e apUl i cant to yet. thi s ini=ormation from the public works or planniny department. Ne not.ed tha�; tl�e a 1 an cd 1 1 ed for a number of f i cus i.rees and ciue t.a the freeze of two vears �cao. the c i ty was try i ng F.o Uet away frc7m tt�ese because they would freez..e. Cammissioner Connor added tr�at 1:t�ere were a number- c�f ar�r3s where �the r�lant m�t�ri�1 was nc��t cd11�d c�ui�. He st.at:ed that. commission would require a more .T �r `'�+�` MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMlSSION MARCH 24, 1992 det.ailed �lan. Commissianer Connor not.ed that= the amount of space bet.ween the r�lantina ( 12") would not work as shown and added that the plan should show how i.ne lawn area separates from the shrubs. Commissioner Connor suggested that the applicant replace the lawn area w i i,h somet.h i ny e i se t.hai:. i s ..iust as green and requ i res a 1 oi: less water. Commissioner Holden no�ted that Eric Johnsnn wouid need t.o review t.Yie revised plan before preseniing it t.o the commissi�n. Ac�i on: �! Ii. was mc�ved bv Commissioner Urrut.ia, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet. to con�tinue the landsr_ape plan direcriny the �pplican�t to address the followiny concerns: 1) f�lant m�teriat needs to be c�iled out in de�tail . 7_) �'ark i ng r ot p 1 an t.o cornr�1 y w i t.h c i ty's park i ng requ i remer7ts. 3? Ficus trees to be replaced. 4) Plan should shaw how t.P�e lawn area is separal:ed frorn the shrubs. 5) Rev i sed r�1 an t.o be r�ev i ewed by Er i c Johnson pr i or i:o returnina to the commission for review. Mat.ion carried 4-0. V. The folloaing cases Nere added to the agenda by a unanimous vote: t . CASE NO.: 17 Z3y40 APPL [CANT tANO AOORESS) : SUNLITE DEVEL.UPMENT, INC. for SUNTERRACE, 77-622 Country Club Drive, Suite "V", Palm Desert, CA y2`l.E�l1 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL. SOUGHT: Ap�roval of final archi�tectur�l plans LQCATION: Northwest corner af Hovley Lane and Eldorado Lane ZONE: PR-5 Pr�i 1 Dr�e 1 1 nated t.hat. when �,he aK�PI i cant. wds before commi ss i on �arlier, the commission did not like th� yable enci roofis next to each ai:.her. The at-�r�1 i cant showed how t.he rev i seci P 1 an showed tt�i s chancae. 8 � � MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MARCN 24. 1992 Act.i on: � 'VI t. was moved by Camm i ss i oner Van V 1 i et, seconded t�y Comrri i ss i oner UrruFi�. to yrant final approval to the archi�tectural pians as submii.l-.ed. Mot.ion carried 4-11. 2. CASE NO. : VAR yl-4 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : RUBERT MAYO for MAYO'S, 73-99U El Paseo. Palm Oesert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: F i na 1 aK�prava 1 of st:�r ef ront: remodei elevations LOCATION: 73-y90 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Ph i 1 Dre 1 1 presented the f i ria 1 rev i sed p 1 ans show i ng wher�e ttie ap�licant had added the details around the front corriers of the remodel as requested by commission. Action: ^��I t was moved by Camm i ss i oner Van V 1 i et, seconded by Co�rxn i ss i oner Holden, �to appr�ve the revised final plans as su�mittF�d. Motion carried 4-0. V[ , ADJOl1RPIMENT: 7he meet�i nca ad iaurned at 1 :30 p.m. -- _—� STFVE SMITH i . ^ A5SC1C[Al'E !'LANNER 5S/db cj