Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Commercial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cathedral City committee asks Amazon project to return with 2–3 design alternatives for visible west wall
Summary
The Cathedral City Architectural Review Committee continued review of an Amazon vehicle-inspection building at 35750 Day Palm Drive on July 16, asking the applicant to return with two to three design alternatives to address the highly visible west elevation and related landscape and parking concerns.
The Cathedral City Architectural Review Committee on July 16 continued consideration of administrative design review 250002, a proposed pre-engineered building for vehicle inspections at 35750 Day Palm Drive, asking the applicant to return with two to three alternative designs that soften the site-facing west elevation.
Assistant Planner Manuel Rocha opened the item, saying, “My name is Manuel Rocha, assistant planner here at the City of Cathedral City. Today I bring before you administrative design review number 250002.” Rocha described the site as part of the Amazon commercial hub center and said staff recommended approval of the proposed structure with conditions.
Committee members raised repeated concerns about the west-facing elevation visible from Deep Palm Drive, calling it “stark” and urging treatments to better match the existing Amazon building on the site. Suggestions included reversing the accent colors to create a left-center-right balance with the existing building, adding vertical brown accent stripes, incorporating plantings or a planted green wall, applying artwork or tile mosaics, using glass-paneled sectional doors to simulate windows, and adding signage. Applicant representative Jasmine Calena said the applicant would consult with the client and asset management about landscaping and signage, telling the committee, “We I think we could look into the landscape suggestion that was mentioned. We would have to involve the client and asset management from their team to further coordinate on that aspect.”
The packet and staff presentation described several technical details: the height of the proposed pre-engineered metal building was given as 17 feet, 5 inches; staff materials and the presentation contained inconsistent descriptions of square footage (the presentation referenced both 8,000 square feet and 1,800 square feet for the building). The site plan presented showed the proposal would remove nine existing parking spaces; staff said that removal would leave a total of 316 parking spaces on the site and that the remaining parking would meet parking requirements. Committee members also questioned shade provided by landscaping near the parking: staff noted a requirement that 50% of parking spaces be re-shaded and that existing palm trees along the right-of-way provide little shade for stalls.
After discussion, Chair Bouchard moved — and Committee member King seconded — to continue the item to the next available meeting with the applicant returning with two to three alternative design schemes that address the committee’s comments. The committee recorded the motion as passing.
The committee placed the item on a future agenda to allow the applicant to present alternate elevations and landscaping options. Staff also noted two items in the packet for upcoming meetings, including an economic development update and the continuation of this item.
The committee heard no public comments on the item at the meeting.
Votes at a glance: A motion to continue administrative design review 250002 to the next available meeting with two to three alternative design options was moved by Chair Bouchard, seconded by Committee member King, and recorded as passed by the committee.
