HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-04-12 �.
K . � �
• MINUTES
PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APRIL 12, 1977
5:30 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
l. The study session of the Design Review Board began at 4:00 P.M, in the Council
Chambers to review the cases on the agenda.
Members Present: Bill Hobbs, George Minturn, Eric Johnson, Jim Hill,
Paul Williams, Frank Urrutia and Bernie Leung
Members Absent: None
Wrr Others Present: Ralph Cipriani, Sam Freed
After a one and one half hour study session, the meeting was called to order
at 5:30 P. M. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Williams that
the minutes of the previous meeting of March 29, 1977 be approved as written.
Motion carried 3-0 (Minturn, Hobbs, Johnson) .
2. CASE N0. 66MF, AMERICAN WEST DEVELOPMENT
Request for preliminary approval of site, floor and elevation plans for a
6-unit apartment complex to be located at the northwest corner of Candlewood
and Panorama. Applicant present.
The discussion of the case began with Mr. Hobbs requesting that the applicant
provide a plot plan uniform on scale as the present plan caused difficulties
in interpretation due to the lack of uniformity.
The applicant was informed that the setback on Panorama would have to be
twelve (12) feet and the setback on the west side of the lot would have to
be eight (8) feet. In addition, the front setback on Candlewood would have
to be increased to fifteen (15) feet. Condition ��8 was changed to reflect
the requirement of sewer hookup. The Board then requested the applicant to
present a copy of the easement in the rear to the Design Review Board in order
to provide assurance that access and egress to and from the parking area would
+�rr be permanent.
The Board informed the applicant that a four (4) foot wall with self-latching
gates would have to be constructed around the pool rather than the 3' 6" wall
shown on the preliminary plan. Further, the grapestake fence shown along
Panorama would have to be changed to masonry or stucco. Mr. Johnson requested
a revised landscaping plan. He emphasized the need for more tree plantings,
more broad-leaf trees and palm trees around the pool. The applicant was also
asked to construct the wall along Panorama in a step-down fashion toward the
alley in order to preserve ling of sight.
A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the preliminary
plans be approved subject to the revised conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs,
Minturn, Johnson, Leung) , Urrutia abstaining.
3. CASE N0. 67MF, CLAUDE AND RONALD SULLIVAN
Request for preliminary approval of site, floor and elevation plans for a
4-unit apartment complex to be located at the southeast corner of Sunset and
Abronia. Applicant present.
The Design Review Board commended the applicant for having proposed such a
fine design. The Board saw no problems with the proposal. The only suggestion
made was that the applicant increase the width of first parking space near the
street to eleven (11) feet in order to provide easier access and egress into
�"" and out of the space.
A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the plan be
approved subject to the conditions. Motion carried 5-0 (Hobbs, Minturn, Johnson,
Urrutia, Leung) .
; " 'i,�° `;,�"
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page two
APRIL 12, 1977
4. CASE N0. 25SA, ROY WILLIAM CARVER
Request for approval of tenant signs to be located at E1 Paseo Square along
El Paseo.
The Board decided that they would present the tenants with the option of either
retaining their present wall sign or constructing a hanging tenant sign, not
to exceed six (6) square feet in lieu of a wall sign.
A motion was made by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Hobbs approving the
� revised sign plan which would provide the tenants with the option and provide
for staff review of the new tenant signs. Motion carried 4-0 (Urrutia, John-
son, Minturn, Hobbs) , Leung abstaining.
5. CASE N0. 34MF, NOE-JACK DEVELOPERS
Request approval of final construction plans for a 9-unit apartment complex,
to be located on lots 3 and 4 of Shadow Mountain Drive.
Changes to Conditions 4�7, �1�8, 4�11 and ��12 were made to reflect the fact that
the case was now in the final construction drawing stage.
It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the final construc-
tion plans be approved, subject to the conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Urrutia,
Minturn, Johnson, Williams) , Leung and Hobbs abstaining.
6. CASE N0. 35MF, NOE-JACK DEVELOPERS
Request approval of final construction plans for a 9-unit apartment complex
to be located on lots 9 and 10, Shadow Mountain Drive.
Changes to Conditions ��7, ��8, ��11 and ��12 were made to reflect the fact the
case was now in the final construction drawing stage.
� It was moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the final construc-
tion plans be approved, subject to conditions. Motion approved 4-0 (Johnson,
Urrutia, Minturn, Williams) , Leung and Hobbs abstaining.
7. CASE N0. 52C, WILLIAM STEWART
�
Request approval of final construction plans for a commercial complex to be
located on the south side of Highway 111, between Portola and San Luis Rey.
The Board decided to require the applicant to retain the floor plan and store
front treatment from the preliminary plans, but approved the new roof treat-
ment as depicted in the revised plans. In addition, the Board asked that
trees be placed in front of the masonry treatment on the elevations to soften
the effect.
The Board requested the applicant provide information relative to the proposed
structure's relationship to the building to the west to the Planning Commission
when the case is heard.
A motion was made by Mr. Leung and seconded by Mr. Hobbs to approve the final
construction plans, sub�ect to the revised conditions with the added condition
that the revised elevations and roof treatment be reviewed by staff. Motion
carried 5-0 (Hobbs, Leung, Minturn, Johnson, Urrutia) .
�, 8. The Design Review Board discussed the Bank of America appeal regarding the
location, number and color of signs. The Board indicated support far the
Planning Commission's action and expressed its desire to go on record recom-
mending that the Planning Commission uphold its original decision.
9. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
RALPH J. CIPRIANI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CITY OF PALM DESERT