Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout176C BOARD OF REALTORSt MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1984 3. CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BOARD OF REALTORS REQUEST: Final approval of completed building. LOCATION: west side Monterey, north of Town Center. ZONE: R-2 Mr. Smith advised commission that the applicant was requesting final building approval and issuance of his certificate of occupancy. At the time of commission approval of the working drawings, concern was expressed relative to the roof mounted equipment. Commission was shown pictures of exposed roof equipment. Frank Goodman was present on behalf of the applicant. Following discussion it was decided that the roof. equipment should be painted to match the building. Moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Cook to direct staff to final the Board of Realtors building subject to the applicant painting the roof mounted equipment to match the building. Carried 5-0. 4. MONTEREY PARTNERSHIP at the southeast corner of Monterey and Fred Waring Drive. Charles Martin advised commission that he represented the applicant and had received planning commission approval to construct a professional office building on the site and showed commission plans and a rendering of same. In response to a request for preliminary comments, commission expressed concern over the lack of landscaping along the east side of the property. It was suggested that additional planting of trees be placed in the narking lot (ie: on the lines between spaces). V. ADJOURNMENT: /dlg The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. STEVE SMITH, Associate Planner -4- �$t�ir off :10m,I1n:�a =(:N=(iPrPi2P POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT: Final approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2, S.P. Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the architectural committee approved the final working drawings for this project, subject to conditions. Date of Action: July 26, 1983 Vote: 3-0-1, Chairman Gregory abstained. (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the city clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: See attached minutes. ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 26, 1993 CASE NO. 177 C - DENNY'S RESTAURANT (CONTINUED): in the color selection since he is aware that the desert community appreciates earth tones but agreed with Chairman Gregory that everything should not be rust, ivory and brown. He felt an agreement could be reached over another selection of colors. Relative to the signs he asked if the problem concerning the east facing sign had been resolved. Mr. Diaz responded that it was city owned property that had been turned over to the redevelopment agency and it is not a parking lot. The east facing sign would not be permitted; however, the detached ground sign would take care of the westbound traffic. Commissioner Martin recommended a sign be placed facing the north side. The commissioners were concerned over the sign colors. After discussing the various alternatives Mr. McKenzie agreed with staff's selection of Nos. 2380, 2325 and 2418 and indicated that he would relay the message to the applicant. There was also some concern over the size of the letters on the parapet sign. The applicant indicated that they are standard sized letters which are mass produced for all the Denny's Restaurants. Commissioner Holden asked if the parapet height could be increased a couple of inches. Mr. McKenzie replied that this matter was out of his jurisdiction. Mr. Diaz recommended that the size of the letters on the parapet signs be a maximum of 20 inches. On a motion by Commissioner Holden seconded by Commissioner Martin, the preliminary plans for the elevations were approved. In terms of the landscape plan, a more detailed plan should be submitted with special attention and information being given to the view of the building from the north side. The trees utilized on this project should tie-in with those used at the Palm Desert Town Center and all other material shown shall be called out. The signs were approved with the letters on the parapet being a maximum height of 20 inches utilizing a 2325 yellow and the freestanding sign shall have a background of 2325 yellow. The word Denny's will be in 2380 rust and the other lettering will be in 2418 brown. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2. CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2, S.P. -2- ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JULY 26, 1983 CASE NO. 176 C - PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS (CONTINUED) Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report indicating that staff would recommend approval of the final plans for this case provided the perimeter walls adjacent to the front property line are relocated in accordance with the municipal code and the matter of the gap in the south wall is adequately addressed as well as the roof mounted equipment. The commissioners discussed this case and on a motion by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Leung, the final working drawings were approved subject to the concerns indicated in the staff report being resolved; the air-conditioning units being relocated so that they are screened by the parapet and that those drawings be resubmitted for staff review and approval. Motion carried unanimously 3-0-1, Chairman Gregory abstained. B. Preliminary Plans: CASE NO: 244 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SAN PABLO PROPERTIES, LTD., c/o M.B. JOHNSON PROPERTIES, 400 West Tustin Avenue, Suite 231, Santa Ana, CA 92703. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 442 unit residential development. LOCATION: Northwest corner of San Pascual and Fred Waring Drive. ZONE: PR-7, S.P. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff would recommend approval of the plans as submitted subject to the conditions set forth in the report and with the addition that a more permanent material or redesign of the windows utilizing cloth awning material shall be submitted to the commission for approval. Mr. Pete Pitassi, project architect for Kiyotoki and Associates was present to represent this case. He asked for clarification on the additional condition that was discussed at the study session. Mr. Diaz indicated that the commissioners were concerned over the use of two blue awnings made of canvas shown on the plans for the rear elevation on the single-family detached. Mr. Pitassi indicated that this was correct, they would be made of a premanufactured canvas. Mr. Diaz stated that the commissioners felt the canvas material would not last the awnings would then be taken down and the screening of those windows provided by the awnings would not be available; therefore, perhaps a more permanent material or a redesign of that elevation to provide better shading of the windows was recommended. Mr. Pitassi inquired if the concern was the longevity of the canvas material. He indicated that they would review the matter but they had previously used that company's awnings on the Hidden Palms Project and there have been no problems with them so far. He asked if they would have to resubmit the revisions through staff. Mr. Diaz replied that the revisions would have to be submitted to staff for review by the commission. Mr. Pitassi asked if he would be able to proceed. - 3 - AGENDA ITEM NO: III-A-2 DATE: July 26, 1983 ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2, S.P. BACKGROUND: This application was before the commission on two previous occasions, October 26, 1982 and December 14, 1982. At the December 14, 1982 meeting the applicant received preliminary approval subject to six conditions (see attached staff report of December 14, 1982 and minutes.) DISCUSSION: As of this time conditions numbers 3, 4 and 5 have not been addressed. Condition 6 requiring that the building be moved three feet to the south has been done. Conditions 3 and 4 requiring flood review approval and parcel map approval to consolidate the lots have not been addressed. These conditions do not specifically impact the commission; however, the reason for including them in the first place was to put the applicant on notice. In seven (7) months since the December 14, 1982, decision, the necessary applications had not been submitted. The building department cannot issue a permit until both these matters have been resolved. Condition 5, has not been addressed. The municipal code requires that perimeter walls of this type be located 7 feet back from the property line. This requirement was called out in the October 26, report as well as the December 14 report and decision. LANDSCAPING: A detailed landscape plan has been submitted and appears acceptable. The commission should review said plan to determine acceptability. CONCERNS: A. The slumpstone wall which extends along the perimeter of the lot, (north and west) has a gap of some 75 feet in the south property line. B. The roof plan indicates a sloping roof with the parapet being 18" high at the north side and 5 feet at the south. The air conditioner units will be installed, approximately 1/3 of the way from the north parapet. The commission should review this matter to determine if the roof mounted equipment will be visible. -1- CASE NO. 176 C JULY 26, 1983 CONCLUSION: The final plans for Case No. 176 C would appear to be substantially acceptable. Provided the perimeter walls adjacent to the front property line are relocated in accordance with the municipal code and the matter of the gap in the south wall is adequately addressed as well as the roof mounted equipment it is felt that the plans can be given final approval. The applicant will still have to obtain flood review approval and approval of a a parcel map to consolidate the lots. RECOMMENDATION• That the final plans for Case No. 176 C be given final approval subject to the following condition: /pa 1. That the perimeter screen wall adjacent to the front property line be relocated to a position of at least 7 feet back from the property line in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.25.017 C. - 2 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 j3. CASE NO: - 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS,. 73-647 Highway 1119 Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building.. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. Mr. Diaz presented the staff report covering board's concerns raised during its review- of the, project on October, 26,-1982. The building has: been reduced in height to 18 feet and minor changes have been made to the west and northelevations., The: fins which project from the west and north wall will be painted and scored to match the pilasters on the front of the. building.- The scoring, and use of trees will break up the wall and- would satisfy the concerns originally raised by staff.. Mr. Diaz then stated that the applicant strongly preferred, not. to reverse the parking, and. building locations. Reversing the locations. would place the parking. area, adjacent to existing residential units to the north. The proposal to move the building forward 40 feet from the west. property line would result in added parking and traffic circulation adjacent to future R-L properties.. A discussion ensued concerning the -north and west building elevationsand the pros and: cons of reversing the• site plan and moving the: building forward.. Mr. Frank Goodman. of the Palm Desert Board of. Realtors reiterated the - reasons the site plan was as presented and indicated that, the applicant supported the -recommendations of -staff.. Discussion then occurred concerning the north elevation and the distance of the building from the property line. Mr. Gregory stated that ten feet would not be a.sufficient area to house the size of tree that would break up the northerly wall. The applicant- agreed to move the building an additional three feet to the, south. Discussion arose concerning the ground treatment at the rear and side of the building_andit was concluded that the applicant could pave or gravel that area and place the trees in tree wells.. It was moved by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Cook, that .preliminary plans be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the following Condition No. 6:: 6. That the building shall be moved southerly an additionalthree feet. Motion carried 4-0. 4. CASE NO: 92 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARIO DELGUIDICE, 56-805 19 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, CA 92284., -4 S.J DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-3 DATE: December 14, 1982 CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 --S.P. BACKGROUND: In May of.1982, the applicants received approval from the planning commission to locate an office building in the R-2, S.P. zone. That approval was subject to conditions (see attached conditions). On October 26, 1982, the applicant requested preliminary approval by the board. At that time the board referred the matter back to .the architect to address the following: I. That the building and parking locations be reversed.. 2. That the building beset back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3: That the building be reduced in height to 18'.. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. DISCUSSION: The plans have been resubmitted. Concerns 1 and 2 outlined above, have not been addressed. The. building has been reduced to 18' and now conforms to the height limit in the R-2 zone. The west and south elevations have been revised slightly with the addition of vertical elements. Staff has been given to understand that the applicant has specific reasons for not addressing concerns 1 and 2. These reasons will be delineated by the applicant at the meeting. CONCERNS: 1'. The property is in the AO-1 Flood Zone and as such will have to obtain public works clearance. 2. Six foot high masonry walls are proposed along the north and west sides of the site. These walls should be decorative for compatibility. 3.. A three and a half foot high masonry wall is proposed along the front property line adjacent to the parking lot. The ordinance relating to office professional zones requires a 7 foot landscape strip. The intent being to provide landscaping adjacent to the street. The east wall will have to be moved back on the site. -1- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM CASE NO. 176 C 4. The property consists of three parcels plus a vacated street. A parcel map will be required to consolidate the property into one lot. 5. The landscaped ares are delineated on the site plan but planting details have not been provided. RECOMMENDATION: Should the board feel that the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns of the board, it should grant preliminary approval. to Case No. 176 C, Palm Desert Board of Realtors, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance ofbuilding permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign ,program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of -environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That prior to final approval by the design review board, the applicant receive flood review committee approval. 4. That prior to final design review board approval, the applicant submit and obtain approval of a parcel map consolidating the parcels into one lot. 5. That the threer and a half (3Y:) foot high perimeter wall adjacent to Monterey Avenue be moved back a minimum of 7 feet from the property line in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.25.017 C. /pa -2- •i , AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-1 DATE: October 26, 1982 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO:- 176 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647'Highway III, Palm Desert, CA 92260; and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE:- R-2 - S.P. BACKGROUND: In May of 1982, the applicants received approval from the planning commission to locate an office building, in the R-29 S.P. zone. That approval. was subject to conditions (see attached conditions). DESCRIPTION OF SITEi- The, 35,230 square foot site consists of three vacant, parcels and the vacated Rancho Grande: -The. land is relatively flat, with a number of power poles crossing the site. The vacated street is- _paved' and still. used for access. PROPOSAL. The project consists off -a 5250 square foot one story building which would be used for the operations of the Palm Desert- Board of Realtors. The. facility provides for office functions as well as for meetings. the, code requires 21 parking spaces for the building, 44 spaces are being provided which exceed the requirement.. Access is provided to Monterey Avenue through a. 27 foot wide driveway. Architecturally, the structure is spanish in nature, with stucco walls and columns, bronze glass, brick trim and mission tile roofing. The height of the flat roof building will be 21 feet. CONCERNS: 1. The property is in the AO-1 Flood Zone and as such will have to obtain public works clearance. 2. Six foot high masonry walls are proposed along the north and west sides of the site. These walls should be decorative for compatibility. 3._ A three and a half foot high masonry wall is proposed along the, front property line. adjacent- to the parking lot. The ordinance relating to office professional zones requires a 7 foot landscape strip. The intent being to provide landscaping adjacent to the street: The east wall will have to be moved back on the site. -1- CASE NO. 176 C OCTOBER 26, 1982 4. The north end of the west elevation is a plain wall and should be upgraded considering the exposure this wall will have. 5. The property consists of three parcels plus a vacated street. A parcel map will be required to consolidate the property into one lot. 6. The landscaped areas are delineated on the site plan but planting details have not been provided. RECOMMENDATION: That the board grant preliminary approval to Case No. 176 C, Palm Desert Board of Realtors, subject to the following conditions: 1: Construction, plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of.occupancy shall be issued until completed. . 2.- Final construction drawings,including.a final landscaping, grading; lighting amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department. of. environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That prior to final approval by the design review board, the applicant receive flood review committee approval. 4. That.prior to final design review board approval, the applicant submit and obtain approval of a parcel map consolidating the parcels into one lot. 5.. That revisions to enhance the architectural quality of the west elevation be provided. 6. That the three and a half (3l4) foot high perimeter wall adjacent to Monterey Avenue be moved back a minimum of 7 feet from the property line in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.25.017 C.: /pa -2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 269 1982 1. CASE NO: 763 SA - ONTARIO NEON COMPANY CONTINUED) Chairman Martin asked Mr. Hardy if he felt staff's suggestion would be acceptable. Mr. Hardy replied that he didn't think the owners would oppose the changes. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the sign program, was approved subject- to the sign having an ivory background with the use of dark blue letters No. 2050 with the words "OAK FURNITURE" being in rust No. 2380. Motion carried unanimously 6-0.. B. Preliminary plans requiring planning commission_ confirmation at its meeting, of November 2, 1982. 1.. CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260; and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: , Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE:- R-2 - S.P. . Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating that -the Palm Desert Board of Realtors had received planning commission approval of a conditional use -permit in May of 19829 to locate the office building in an R-2-zone. The project would be a one story 5250 square foot building which would be used for office functions as well as for meetings. He added that there would be sufficient parking with access provided to Monterey Avenue through a 27 foot wide driveway. The board reviewed the plans for the proposed development and was concerned' over the location of the building on the site plan relative to residentially zoned property to the west; the access to the site following the widening of Monterey Avenue and the elevational treatments proposed. Mr. Sexton, architect representing the applicant indicated that the location of the building was the one preferred by the owners. Basically, they wanted it to relate as much as possible to the Hahn Center but this was before they knew there would be a six foot wall and a berm along the south property line. He recognized that the access would be restricted by the center median and agreed that the location of the building could be moved to the southerly portion of the lot closest to Monterey. Ms. Jackson asked why the building was 20 feet high. Mr. Sexton replied that there would be a 25 x 70 square foot wide meeting room and they were trying to get enough ceiling height to make it acceptable._ -2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 1. CASE NO: 176 C (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by M%.. Holden, the preliminary plans were referred back to the architect to be restudied in order that he may address the following concerns: 1. That the building and parking locations be reversed. 2. That the building be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3. That the building be reduced in height to 18' to conform to the R-2 zoning, provisions. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Ms. Jackson abstaining. 2. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MILLARD ARCHULETA ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2780 square foot commercial building: LOCATION: Northwest corner of the north frontage road and San Carlos Drive., ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith summarized the staff report indicating staff's concerns, the first being relative to the setbacks. The building would have to be- moved back on the lot or sections of the. building would have, to be reduced in order to meet the five foot requiredsetbacks adjacent to the streets: If this were done, the building- would line up with the existing buildings to the west. Mr:- Gregory felt the north elevation was weak and could be improved by landscaping it with some- small planters against the wall. It was Ms. -Jackson's feeling that a little more ingenuity could be used to enhance the building but felt that if the plans complied she wouldn't ask for any changes. Mr. Leung felt that the building was too big for the site, it needed more undulation to make it more interesting and some tree elements could be added. Chairman Martin felt that the parking requirements for a lot of this size really hurt the building. Mr. Gregory asked if the city and client could compromise. He felt that if the owner were willing to give up a little of the building area and the city could :give up a couple of parking spaces, the building could be greatly improved. - 3 - 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: December 22, 1982 Palm Desert Board of Realtors 73-647 Highway Ill Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. 176 C The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of December 21, 1982. APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION ON THIS CASE Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm D rt, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/Icr cc: File fi MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 1982 approval of plans for Phase I of a church located on the south side of. Hovley Drive between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue. JC. Case No. 176 C - PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS - Preliminary approval of plans for an office building located on the west side of Monterey Avenue opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. Because of a possible conflict of interest, Chairman Wood excused himself from consideration of these items. Mr. Smith reviewed the design review board, items and recommended approval. Commissioner Kryder commented on the columns of the Board of Realtors building, and felt they were too masive. After reviewing a colored rendering commission felt the design was acceptable. Moved by Commissioner Crites,. seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the design review board items as presented. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Wood abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS.ITEMS A. PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - Request for adoption of a resolution finding the Redevelopment Project conforming to the General Plan and transmitting its report and recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr.. Sawa reviewed discussions on this matter at the previous meeting and stated that answers to the questions commission had were addressed in the report. He read the questions and answers and gave staff's recommendation which would be included in the draft resolution. Mr. Ortega briefly, addressed the commission on the. redevelopment, agency's proceedings and staffs recommendation. MR. DAVID SCHEY, Community Development Director for Indian Wells, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Commissioner Kryder noted that the draft resolution was incomplete. Mr. Sawa reviewed the amendments and/or additions which were included in the following motion. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 835, as amended, finding that the .proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan; recommending that the commission advises the Palm Desert City Council and Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency that based on the recommendation of legal counsel it should seriously consider postponing adoption of an, ordinance. accomplishing this amendment until the legal challenges- to the Indian Wells, Redevelopment Agency have been satisfactorily settled and dismissed; and, transmiting to the city council and redevelopment agency the responses to concerns raised in the memorandum of December 14, 1982. Carried unanimously 4-0. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XI. COMMENTS Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to instruct staff to notify CVAG and request agendas and/or minutes of their Executive Committee meetings be sent to each commissioner.- Carded unanimously. Commissioner Crites also instructed staff to notify CVAG and inform them that Commissioner Crites is :on the Environmental Committee meeting but has not been notified of any meetings. Commissioner Downs asked for the status on the study for minimum size of dwelling units. Staff would relate this to Mr. Diaz. -3- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 ' 03. CASE NO 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage,, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. Mr. Diaz presented the staff report covering board's concerns raised during its review of the project on October 26,, 1982. The building has been reduced in height to 18 feet and minor changes have been made to the west and north elevations. The fins which project from the west and north wall will be painted and scored to match the pilasters on the front of the building. The scoring and use of trees will break up the wall and would' satisfy the concerns originally raised by staff. Mr. Diaz then stated that the applicant strongly preferred not to reverse the parking and building locations. Reversing the locations would place the ,parking area adjacent to existing residential units to the north. The proposal to move the building forward 40 feet from the west property line would result in added parking and traffic circulation adjacent to future R-1 properties. A discussion ensued concerning the north and west building elevations and the pros and cons of reversing the site plan and moving the building forward. Mr. Frank Goodman of the Palm Desert Board of Realtors reiterated the reasons the site plan was as presented and indicated that the applicant supported the recommendations of staff. Discussion then occurred' concerning the north elevation and the distance of the building from the property line. Mr. Gregory stated that ten feet would not be a sufficient area.to house the* size of tree that would break up the northerly wall. The applicant agreed to move the building an additional three feet to the. south. Discussion arose concerning the ground treatment at the rear and side of the building and it was concluded that the applicant could pave or gravel that area and place the trees in tree wells. It was moved by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Cook, that preliminary plans be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the following Condition No. 6: 6. That the building shall be moved southerly an additional three feet. Motion carried 4-0. 4. CASE NO: 92 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARIO DELGUIDICE, 56-805 19 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, -CA 92284. -4- AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-3 DATE: December 14, 1982 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO• 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. BACKGROUND: In May of 1982, the applicants received approval from the planning commission to locate an office building in the R-2, S.P. zone. That approval was subject to conditions (see attached conditions). On October 26, 1982, the applicant requested preliminary approval by the board. At that time the board referred the matter back to the architect to address the following: 1. That the building and parking locations be reversed. 2. That the building be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3. That the building be reduced in height to 181. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. DISCUSSION: The plans have been resubmitted. Concerns 1 and 2 outlined above, have not been addressed. The building has been reduced to 18' and now conforms to the height limit in the R-2 zone. The west and south elevations have been revised slightly with the addition of vertical elements. Staff has been given to understand that the applicant has specific reasons for not addressing concerns 1 and 2. These reasons will be delineated by the applicant at the meeting. CONCERNS: 1. The property is in the AO-1 Flood Zone and as such will have to obtain public works clearance. 2. Six foot high masonry walls are proposed along the north and west sides of the site. These walls should be decorative for compatibility. 3. A three and a half foot high masonry wall is proposed along the front property line adjacent to the parking lot. The ordinance relating to office professional zones requires a 7 foot landscape strip. The intent being to provide landscaping adjacent to the street. The east wall will have to be moved back on the site. -1- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM CASE NO. 176 C 4. The property consists of three parcels plus a vacated street. A parcel map will be required to consolidate the property into one lot. 5. The landscaped ares are delineated on the site plan but planting details have not been provided. RECOMMENDATION: Should the board feel that the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns of the board, it should grant preliminary approval to Case No. 176 C, Palm Desert Board of Realtors, subject to the following conditions: Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That prior to final approval by the design review board, the applicant receive flood review committee approval. 4. That prior to final design review board approval, the applicant submit and obtain approval of a parcel map consolidating the parcels into one lot. 5. That the three and a half (314) foot high perimeter wall adjacent to Monterey Avenue be moved back a minimum of 7 feet from the property line in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.25.017 C. /pa -2- AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-1 DATE: October 26, 1982 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260; and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. BACKGROUND: In May of 1982, the applicants received approval from the planning commission to locate an office building in the R-2, S.P. zone. That approval was subject to conditions (see attached conditions). DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The 35,230 square foot site consists of three vacant parcels and the vacated Rancho Grande. The land is relatively flat with a number of power poles crossing the site. The vacated street is paved and still used for access. PROPOSAL: The project consists of a 5250 square foot one story building which would be used for the operations of the Palm Desert Board of Realtors. The facility provides for office functions as well as for meetings. The code requires 21 parking spaces for the building, 44 spaces are being provided which exceed the requirement. Access is provided to Monterey Avenue through a 27 foot wide driveway. Architecturally, the structure is spanish in nature, with stucco walls and columns, bronze glass, brick trim and mission tile roofing. The height of the flat roof building will be 21 feet. CONCERNS: 1. The property is in the AO-1 Flood Zone and as such will have to obtain public works clearance. 2. Six foot high masonry walls are proposed along the north and west sides of the site. These walls should be decorative for compatibility. 3. A three and a half foot high masonry wall is proposed along the front property line adjacent to the parking lot. The ordinance relating to office professional zones requires a 7 foot landscape strip. The intent being to provide landscaping adjacent to the street. The east wall will have to be moved back on the site. -1- CASE NO. 176 C OCTOBER 26, 1982 4. The north end of the west elevation is a plain wall and should be upgraded considering the exposure this wall will have. 5. The property consists of three parcels plus a vacated street. A parcel map will be required to consolidate the property into one lot. 6. The landscaped areas are delineated on the site plan but planting details have not been provided. RECOMMENDATION: That the board grant preliminary approval to Case No. 176 C, Palm Desert Board of Realtors, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That prior to final approval by the design review board, the applicant receive flood review committee approval. 4. That prior to final design review board approval, the applicant submit and obtain approval of a parcel map consolidating the parcels into one lot. 5. That revisions to enhance the architectural quality of the west elevation be provided. 6. That the three and a half (3Y:) foot high perimeter wall adjacent to Monterey Avenue be moved back a minimum of 7 feet from the property line in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.25.017 C. /pa - 2 - IFF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 1. CASE NO: 763 SA - ONTARIO NEON COMPANY CONTINUED) Chairman Martin asked Mr. Hardy if he felt staff's suggestion would be acceptable. Mr. Hardy replied that he didn't think the owners would oppose the changes. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the sign program as approved subject to the sign having an ivory backgroundwwith the use of dark blue letters No. 2050 with the words "OAK FURNITURE" being in rust No. 2380. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. B. Preliminary plans requiring planning commission confirmation at its meeting of November 2, 1982. 1. CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260; and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating that the Palm Desert Board of Realtors had received planning commission approval of a conditional use permit in May of 1982, to locate the office building in an R-2 zone. The project would be a one story 5250 square foot building which would be used for office functions as well as for meetings. He added that there would be sufficient parking with access provided to Monterey Avenue through a 27 foot wide driveway. The board reviewed the plans for the proposed development and was concerned over the location of the building on the site plan relative to residentially zoned property to the west; the access to the site following the widening of Monterey Avenue and the elevational treatments proposed. Mr. Sexton, architect representing the applicant indicated that the location of the building was the one preferred by the owners. Basically, they wanted it to relate as much as possible to the Hahn Center but this was before they knew there would be a six foot wall and a berm along the south property line. He recognized that the access would be restricted by the center median and agreed that the location of the building could be moved to the southerly portion of the lot closest to Monterey. Ms. Jackson asked why the building was 20 feet high. Mr. Sexton replied that, there would be a 25 x 70 square foot wide meeting room and they were trying to get enough ceiling height to make it acceptable. -2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 1. CASE NO: 176 C (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Holden, the preliminary plans were referred back to the architect to be restudied in order that he may address the following concerns: 1. That the building and parking locations be reversed. 2. That the building be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3. That the building be reduced in height to 18' to conform to the R-2 zoning provisions. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Ms. Jackson abstaining. 2. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2780 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the north frontage road and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith summarized the staff report indicating staff's concerns, the first being relative to the setbacks. The building would have to be moved back on the lot or sections of the building would have to be reduced in order to meet the five foot required setbacks adjacent to the streets. If this were done, the building would line up with the existing buildings to the west. Mr. Gregory felt the north elevation was weak and could be improved by landscaping it with some small planters against the wall. It was Ms. Jackson's feeling that a little more ingenuity could be used to enhance the building but felt that if the plans complied she wouldn't ask for any changes. Mr. Leung felt that the building was too big for the site, it needed more undulation to make it more interesting and some tree elements could be added. Chairman Martin felt that the parking requirements for a lot of this size really hurt the building. Mr. Gregory asked if the city and client could compromise. He felt that if the owner were willing to give up a little of the building area and the city could give up a couple of parking spaces, the building could be greatly improved. - 3 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 1. CASE NO: 763 SA - ONTARIO NEON COMPANY CONTINUED) Chairman Martin asked Mr. Hardy if he felt staff's suggestion would be acceptable. Mr. Hardy replied that he didn't think the owners would oppose the changes. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the sign program was approved subject to the sign having an ivory background with the use of dark blue letters No. 2050 with the words "OAK FURNITURE" being in rust No. 2380. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. B. Preliminary plans requiring planning commission confirmation at its meeting of November 2, 1982. 1. CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260; and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway III, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating that the Palm Desert Board of Realtors had received planning commission approval of a conditional use permit in May of 1982, to locate the office building in an R-2 zone. The project would be a one story 5250 square foot building which would be used for office functions as well as for meetings. He added that there would be sufficient parking with access provided to Monterey Avenue through a 27 foot wide driveway. The board reviewed the plans for the proposed development and was concerned over the location of the building on the site plan relative to residentially zoned property to the west; the access to the site following the widening of Monterey Avenue and the elevational treatments proposed. Mr. Sexton, architect representing the applicant indicated that the location of the building was the one preferred by the owners. Basically, they wanted it to relate as much as possible to the Hahn Center but this was before they knew there would be a six foot wall and a berm along the south property line. He recognized that the access would be restricted by the center median and agreed that the location of the building could be moved to the southerly portion of the lot closest to Monterey. Ms. Jackson asked why the building was 20 feet high. Mr. Sexton replied that there would be a 25 x 70 square foot wide meeting room and they were trying to get enough ceiling height to make it acceptable. - 2 - I DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 CASE NO. 176 C (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Holden, the preliminary plans were referred back to the architect to be restudied in order that he may address the following concerns: 1. That the building and parking locations be reversed. 2. That the building be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3. That the building be reduced in height to 18' to conform to the R-2 zoning provisions. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Ms. Jackson abstaining. 2. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2780 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the north Frontage Road and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith summarized the staff report indicating staff's concerns, the first being relative to the setbacks. The building would have to be moved back on the lot or sections of the building would have to be reduced in order to meet the five foot required setbacks adjacent to the streets. If this were done, the building would line up with the existing buildings to the west. Mr. Gregory felt the north elevation was weak and could be improved by landscaping it with some small planters against the wall. It was Ms. Jackson's feeling that a little more ingenuity could be used to enhance the building but felt that if the plans complied she wouldn't ask for any changes. Mr. Leung felt that the building was too big for the site, it needed more undulation to make it more interesting and some tree elements could be added. Chairman Martin felt that the parking requirements for a lot of this size really hurt the building. Mr. Gregory asked if the city and client could compromise. He felt that if the owner were willing to give up a little of the building area and the city could give up a couple of parking spaces, the building could be greatly improved. - 3 - AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-1 DATE: October 26, 1982 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway III, Palm Desert, CA 92260; and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. BACKGROUND: In May of 1982, the applicants received approval from the planning commission to locate an office building in the R-2, S.P. zone. That approval was subject to conditions (see attached conditions). DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The 35,230 square foot site consists of three vacant parcels and the vacated Rancho Grande. The land is relatively flat with a number of power poles crossing the site. The vacated street is paved and still used for access. PROPOSAL: The project consists of a 5250 square foot one story building which would be used for the operations of the Palm Desert Board of Realtors. The facility provides for office functions as well as for meetings. The code requires 21 parking spaces for the building, 44 spaces are being provided which exceed the requirement. Access is provided to Monterey Avenue through a 27 foot wide driveway. Architecturally, the structure is spanish in nature, with stucco walls and columns, bronze glass, brick trim and mission tile roofing. The height of the flat roof building will be 21 feet. CnNCFR NSe 1. The property is in the AO-1 Flood Zone and as such will have to obtain public works clearance. 2. Six foot high masonry walls are proposed along the north and west sides of the site. These walls should be decorative for compatibility. 3. A three and a half foot high masonry wall is proposed along the front property line adjacent to the parking lot. The ordinance relating to office professional zones requires a 7 foot landscape strip. The intent being to provide landscaping adjacent to the street. The east wall will have to be moved back on the site. -1- CASE, NO. 176 C OCTOBER 26, 1982 4. The north endof the west elevation is a plain wall and should be upgraded considering the exposure this wall will have. 5. The property consists of three parcels plus a vacated street. A parcel map will be required to consolidate the property into one lot. 6. The landscaped areas are delineated on the site plan but planting details have not been provided. RECOMMENDATION: That the board grant preliminary approval to Case No. 176 C, Palm Desert Board of Realtors, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That prior to final approval by the design review board, the applicant receive flood review committee approval. 4. That prior to final design review board approval, the applicant submit and obtain approval of a parcel map consolidating the parcels into one lot. 5. That revisions to enhance the architectural quality of the west elevation be provided. 6. That the three and a half (3%2) foot high perimeter wall adjacent to Monterey Avenue be moved back a minimum of 7 feet from the property line in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.25.017 C. /pa -2- ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION PAIJ.1 DESERT EOAPE) OF REALTC;:S Applicant ( w•••• amo 73-647 hir,hway 111 ,,46-SG37 Mailing Address Telephone Palm Desert, California :2260 City 5tale Zip -Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) U • • . r , r . - . . r . r . !-.airu:al[�t>iglli PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Palm Vista Unit #2, recorded in Book 33, Pares C6 and 87 of ':laps, Riverside County ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. 629-055-016/629-055-1C/629-055-022 EXISTING ZONING R2 SP Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER (5) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION. SIGNATURE DATE AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS. 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. Applicant's Signature (FOR STAFF USE OILY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION ❑ OTHER E.A. No. SIGNATURE ACCEPTED BY CASE No. r OAT C J— /. REFERENCE CASE NO.