Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-10 i r MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 ***************************************************************** I . CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12 : 30 p.m. Commissioners Present Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 3 0 Frank Urrutia X 3 0 Chris Van Vliet X 3 0 Wayne Connor X 3 0 Richard O'Donnell X 3 0 Ronald Gregory X 3 0 Staff Present: Steve Smith Steve Buchanan Pat Bedrosian Donna Bitter II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the minutes of the September 26 , 1995 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Urrutia Abstaining from Case Numbers PP 95-5 and 4544 SA. III . CASES : A. Final Drawings : 1 . CASE NO. : PALMS TO PINES CANVAS for MAYO' S RESTAURANT, Pinyon Pines, Box 69, Mountain Center, CA 92361 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised awning color LOCATION: Plaza Portola - 73-990 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented pictures of the restaurant noting that the commission had approved the remodel and the additional burgundy canopy at its last meeting. The applicant requested to change the approved burgundy canopy to a gray canopy. "*MW MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the gray awning as submitted. Motion carried 6-0 . 2 . CASE NO. : 4554 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MR. AND MRS. HENRY MIYAMOTO for MIDORI RESTAURANT, 73-759 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business identification signage LOCATION: 73-759 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith presented pictures of the existing restaurant along with a sample of the material and requested change in signage. He indicated that the business has 21 feet of frontage and therefore is entitled to 21 square feet of signage. The proposed signage shows 24 square feet and therefore is over the allowable size. Mr. Smith asked how long the existing awning was . Mr. Kawakami indicated that it was 5 feet long with 10 inch high letters . Commissioner Gregory informed Mr. Kawakami that he needed to reduce the height of the sign so that the total signage does not exceed 21 square feet. Commissioner Gregory felt that the sign looked like it was sitting on the edge parapet, leaning against the fascia. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the signage subject to confirming the proper size with a maximum total signage area of 21 square feet. Motion carried 6-0 . 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 3 . CASE NO. : 4555 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : RIOFINE NEON SIGN COMPANY for INDIAN WELLS HAIR SALON, 3500 Tachevah Drive, Unit D, Palm Springs, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised business identification signage LOCATION: 74-040 E1 Paseo ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented pictures of the business storefront as well as a drawing indicating the proposed signage. The applicant showed the commission a sample of the requested blue neon noting that it would be mounted on a raceway painted brown to match the fascia. She indicated that the sign is actually 11 square feet. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to approve the signage as submitted. Motion carried 6-0 . B. Preliminary Plans : 1. CASE NO. : PP 95-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary plans for restaurant building LOCATION: Southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented plans for the proposed restaurant building noting that it would be going before the planning commission next week and once the conditions are placed on the precise plan, the Redevelopment Agency will go out for RFP' s . Commission reviewed the plans . 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the preliminary plans for the restaurant building as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1, Commissioner Urrutia Abstaining. 2 . CASE NO. : APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : COACHELLA VALLEY HOUSING COALITION, 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G, Plaza 1, Indio, CA 92201 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of precise plan of 30 unit apartment project, self-help housing subdivision, and office building LOCATION: West side of Washington Street, north of Fred Waring Drive ZONE: The architect, Mr. Ruele Young, presented colored renderings for the project noting that it would be a 20 acre mixed use development consisting of a 36 unit apartment complex, free standing office building, self help housing, and a small park. Commissioner Gregory asked who would be maintaining the street trees . Mr. Young indicated that they would be maintained by the residents . He added that it would not be a gated community but would have C.C.&R. ' s . Commissioner Urrutia asked where the handicapped parking spaces would be. Mr. Young indicated that they had not properly addressed this issue as yet. Commissioner Gregory discussed his concerns with the parking asking where the park guests would park. Mr. Young indicated that cars could park along the streets . Mr. Young indicated that the Parks and Recreation Commission asked that they only provide this amount of parking spaces and allow for a large open space, roller hockey, and basketball . Mr. Winklepleck felt that there could be something done along the south side of Latisha for additional parking. 4 `WW `400, MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 Commissioner Gregory asked about moving the location of the park between the self help housing and the apartment complex separating the two. Commissioner Holden agreed and felt that the children should be able to leave the apartment complex and get to the park without having to go through the entire project. Commissioner Holden discussed his concerns with the landscaping and the viability of the maintenance by the homeowners . Mr. Michael Boyer of the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition indicated that all the homes will have installed sprinkler systems with timers . Commissioner Gregory asked what happens when the houses are sold to another family. Mr. Boyer explained that if they sell their home they are required to find a family that is a qualified low income buyer. commissioner Urrutia asked who would enforce the C.C.&R. ' s . Mr. Boyer indicated that the Redevelopment Agency would be the governing agent. Commissioner Gregory discussed his concerns with the parallel parking adjacent to the development not being as attractive as it could be. Commissioner Urrutia noted that he would rather see more landscaping. Commissioner Urrutia asked if they had given any thought to a closer relationship with the park and the child care center. commissioner O'Donnell stated that he really appreciated the planning that had gone into the idea of self help homes, however was concerned with the two linear apartment units as they seemed to be a little out of context with the remainder of the project. Commissioner Holden asked what the need was for the office. Mr. Young indicated that it would be the home office for the housing coalition. Commissioner Urrutia suggested moving the office building closer to Washington Street and place additional parking closer to the housing units to help break up the office building from the residents . Commissioner O'Donnell asked what the predicted time line was for the project. Mr. Young noted that the project was scheduled on the next planning commission agenda on November 7th. Mr. Smith noted that the elevations for the office building were not presented. He also 5 UWI Ift.+ MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 expressed his concern with locating the C.V.H.C. office building with 70 employees immediately adjacent to the Desert Breezes community. Action: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to grant preliminary approval of the elevations with conceptual approval of the site plan. Motion carried 6-0 . C. Miscellaneous: 1 . CASE NO. : 416 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : McDANIEL CONSTRUCTION for MR. GREG SWAJIAN, Post Office Box 2298, Cathedral City, CA 92235 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of plans for walk-in closet off second floor office building LOCATION: E1 Paseo Professional Plaza - 74-090 E1 Paseo ZONE: C-1 Jeff Winklepleck presented pictures of the existing building noting that the closet would face E1 Paseo and take 'up approximately half of the balcony. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the plans for the walk-in closet as submitted. Motion carried 6-0 . 2 . CASE NO. : 907 SF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MARCOS PORRAS, 74-250 Goleta Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of front yard play structure LOCATION: 74-250 Goleta Avenue ZONE: R-1 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 Jeff Winklepleck presented pictures of a play structure that was constructed illegally in the front yard. He indicated that it was located directly on the property line. Mr. Porras addressed the commission explaining his intentions of completing the play structure within three weeks . He stated that he knows that the fence was built illegally and would be willing to take it down if directed so by the commission. Mr. Porras explained that there is a pool in the rear yard and therefore the only room for a play structure on the property is in the front yard. He noted that the structure would have no electricity and smoke detectors would be installed. Commissioner Urrutia asked if it was placed against the house. Mr. Porras indicated that it was approximately 5 feet from his house and one-half inch from the chain link fence. The height of the structure is 6 feet. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the city had received a complaint about the location and appearance of the structure. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there was any portion of the back yard that was not taken up by the pool . Mr. Porras indicated that there was some room but that it was not visible from the house. Commissioner Holden felt that this commission was not the board that can approve or deny the structure. Commissioner Urrutia agreed and felt that it was more of a planning commission issue. He felt that if the planning commission approved the location, Mr. Porras could come back to this commission with the details for the architecture. Mr. Bedrosian informed Mr. Porras that he would need to provide drawings showing exactly what the finished structure will look like. Mr. Bedrosian referred Mr. Porras to the public works department to insure that the fence was not in the public right-of-way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to refer the request to the planning commission to clarify the land use. If the planning commission approves the location of the structure it is to be referred back to this commission for appropriate aesthetics review. Applicant to provide detailed drawing of the existing fence and to work with staff for final approval . Motion carried 6-0 . 7 %w•' `' MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1995 Mr. Porras added that the green structure shown in the pictures was a portable goal that is removed and stored away. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 2 : 15 p.m. E SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 8