Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-12-27 .)use MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 27, 1977 1 . The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall , after an hour and fifteen minute study session. Members present: George Minturn Frank Urrutia Phyllis Jackson Eric Johnson Bernie Leung Paul A. Williams Members absent: Jim Hill Staff present: Ralph Cipriani , Associate Planner Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works Kathy Shorey, Planning Secretary It was moved by Minturn, seconded by Urrutia to approve the minutes of December 6, 1977. Motion carried 5-0 (Minturn, Urrutia, Jackson , Leung, Johnson) . 2. Case No. 88MF - VICTOR JENNINGS - Final construction drawings for a duplex to be located on the west side of Portola, northerly of Fairway. Applicant not present. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Leung the case was approved, carried un- animously 5-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Minturn, Leung, Urrutia) . 3. Case No. 10OMF - SANTIAGO FERNANDEZ -Final construction drawings for a duplex to be located on the northwest corner of Alessandro and Santa Anita. Applicant present. low On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Urrutia the case was approved, carried un- anim.ously 5-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Minturn, Leung, Urrutia) . 4. Case No. 68C - FRANK J. URRUTIA - Final construction drawings for a store front remodeling located on the north side of E1 Paseo, west of San Luis Rey. Appli- cant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson the case was approved, carried un- animously 4-1 (AYES: Jackson, Johnson, Minturn, Leung; ABSTAIN : Urrutia) . 5. Case No. 57C - CLARENCE SABA - Final landscaping plan for a commercial complex to be located on the northeast corner of Larkspur and E1 Paseo. Applicant not present. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia the case was approved, carried un- animously 5-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Minturn, Leung, Urrutia) . 6. Case No. 83MF - DEEP CANYON, LTD. - Final landscaping plan for each model to be used throughout the project for a 212 single-family residential complex to be located south of 44th Avenue, east of Deep Canyon Road. Applicant not present. `r.. Mr. Williams noted the following changes to be noted on the plans: Replace GC-2 with Ojuga Reptans, replace GC-3 with Grey Gazanik or alternatives, replace T-1 as it won't take the climate, replace T-3 as it won't take the climate, replace S-4 as it won' t take the climate, possibly using juniper sea green and T-6 is questionable in the open. Also the applicant should consider a drip ir- rigation system wherever possible. It was noted that the applicant must still submit a final landscaping plan for the entire site which would show details for proposed landscaping on the perimeter of the project, particularly along Deep Canyon Road and 44th Avenue. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn the case was approved unanimously 5-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Minturn, Leung, Urrutia. Minutes De!A gn Review Board December 27, 1977 Page Two 7. Case No. 102MF - C. G. DUNHAM - Preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for 30 condominium units to be located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, east of Lupine and west of Sun Lodge.. Applicant present. Mr. Williams noted the following concerns of the Board: The corner units should be reorientated toward corner at a 45* axis; eliminate as many drive- ways as possible; provide more two-story units in center to open up project; simplify elevations; and, consider reduction in size of units. Mr. Dunham asked how this would effect the CUP that is to be before the Plan- ning Commission meeting of January 3, 1978, if the case is continued. Mr. Williams stated that it would delay the case two weeks. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Leung, the case was continued to the Jan- uary loth meeting; carried unanimously 5-0 (Jackson, Johnson, Minturn, Urrutia, Leung) . 8. Case No. 105MF - LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA -• Preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for 242 single-family residences to be located on the north- east corner of Highway 74 and Haystack. Betty Williams , Project Manager, present. Mrs. Williams referred to Condition No. 1 and asked if the required 6 ft. block wall could be changed as they were proposing to berm the area. Mr. Williams indicated that the need for the wall was for noise abatement and the Condition could be changed with the addition of the following: "or a alternative combina- tion wall/earth berm treatment acceptable to the Design Review Board". Mr. Wil- liams also noted the addition of Condition No. 5 - "The parking for the private recreation be provided on Lot 108. " Mr. Leung stated that it would be advantageous for the Board to have a 1/8" scale prototype for landscaping purposes. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Minturn, the case was approved unanimously 5-0 (Minturn, Jackson , Johnson, Urrutia, Leung). 9. Case No. 106MF - CHARLES ROOT - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for 21 condominium units to be located east of Deep Canyon, between Sage Brush and Driftwood. Applicant not present. Mr. Williams indicated the Board's concerns and noted the addition of two conditions. Condition No. 5 - Increase setback between buildings to a minimum of 10 feet. Condition No. 6 - Eliminate driveway on loop street. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Jackson, the case was approved unanimously 5-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . 10. Case No. 104MF - RONALD STEWART - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for TZ- con ominium units to be located on the east side of Ocotillo, south of Tumble- weed. Rick Holden representing the applicant, present. Mr. Leung questioned the necessity for sidewalks on this project. Mr. Williams noted that other projects in the area were required to have sidewalks and the Commission and Council both maintain the policy of the need for sidewalks on all projects. Mr. Cipriani noted one justification for sidewalks would be to gee from the units to the parking spaces. Some discussion followed with regard to the access to the parking lot from some of the units and the need for more trash enclosures. With the addition of two conditions, these issues were addressed as follows: Condition No. 6. - Provide pedestrian connections from the units to the garages. Condition No. 7 Provide an additional trash enclosure in the center of the project. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Minturn the case was approved unanimously 5-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . Minutes Design Review Board December 27, 1977 Page Three 11 . Case No. 67C - Mr. Williams suggested that this case be discussed last. 12. Case No. 74MF - DILLMAN & DILLMAN, INC. - Final construction drawings for a duplex to be located on the east side of Panorama, south of E1 Camino. Appli- cant present. There was some discussion as to the location of the units and the access to the units from the parking areas. Mr. Dillman stated that the plans had been ,o submitted previously and rejected and this was the solution that architect had come up with. Mr. Williams noted the following corrections should be made to the plans : Connect the carports to the building and eliminate the cypress trees as they will block the sun. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson the case was approved unanimously 5-0 (Minturn, Jackson , Leung, Urrutia, Johnson) . 13. Case No. 107MF - WILLIAM COX - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a duplex to be located on the northwest corner of Sonora and Monterey. Applicant present. Mr. Cipriani noted that the applicant had obtained an adjustment on the rear- yard setback from 20 ft. to 12 ft. Mr. Johnson noted some changes on the landscaping plan with regard to the plant selections. Mr. Williams noted the addition of two conditions: Condition No. 3 Windo treatment should be replaced with shadow box treatment. Condition No. 4 - Revise landscape plan as noted on plan. On a motion by Leung, seconded by Urrutia, the case was approved unanimously 4-0 (Minturn, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . 14. Case No. 69C - C. G. DUNHAM - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a commercial complex to be located on the east side of San Pablo, between Highway 111 and E1 Paseo. Applicant present. Some discussion about the location of the driveway openings between the Board and Mr. Beebe followed. Mr. Williams noted the addition of four conditions: Condition No. 7 - Close center driveway opening and landscape the area. Condition No. 8 - Show east elevation treatment. Condition No. 9 - Submit sign plan for project. Condi- tion No. 10 - Reduce height of Cupola to bring it more into scale with project. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn the case was approved unanimously 4-0 (Minturn, Johnson, Urrutia, Leung) . 11 . Case No. 67C - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a commercial complex to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and 74. Ron Roberts representing the applicant, present. Staff noted that the proposed plan requires a traffic study and is at odds with the present Redevelopment Plan for the commercial area. One of the DRB members .,� indicated that a major objection to the proposal lies in the existence of a large blank wall on E1 Paseo rather than a use which would involve pedestrian activity. The applicant then indicated that when they drew up the present proposal they were under the impression that they were conforming with the present redevelop- ment plan, with regard to the parking layout and circulation. He added that they had already contacted a Traffic Engineer to do a traffic study. ' Minutes Design Review Board Dec: nber 27, 1977 Page Four 11 . Case No. 67C (Cont. ) The discussion that followed centered around general traffic circulation and ingress and egress into the proposed development. Mr. Urrutia indicated that the proposal does, not appear to make the best and highest use of the subject site. Mr. Williams noted that the proposal lacks sufficient landscaping. The applicant: stated that this was due to the fact that the present proposal was highly generalized. r.r Mr.. Leung then indicated that when the proposed traffic study is developed, the traffic engineer should consider the fact that the grocery being proposed is substantially larger than the present Safeway store which would result in a much larger market area which in itself poses unique problems. At the conculsion of the discussion , the applicant inquired as to when the submittal deadline would be for the submittal of a modified plan. Mr. Williams indicated that any supplemental information should be provided prior to the Wednesday prior to the meeting of January 10, 1978. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn the case was continued to the January 10, 1978 meeting; carried unanimously 4-0 (Minturn, Johnson , Urrutia, Leung) . Mee-': ing was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. c A, KATIH SHOR Planning ecretary /ks