Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-07 MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY - JUNE 7, 1977 5:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. The Study Session of the Design Review Board began at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall . The purpose of this study session was to review the cases on the agenda. Members Present: Bill Hobbs, Bernie Leung, George Minturn, Frank Urrutia, Ralph Cipriani (for Paul Williams) wrr Others Present: Sam Freed After a one-hour study session, the meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the min- utes of the previous meeting of May 24, 1977 be approved as written. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Minturn, Urrutia) . 2. CASE NO. 23SA, ROY WILLIAM CARVER, APPLICANT Request for approval of a sign program for the Palm to Pines Shopping Center. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the applicant's proposal and presented the additional information the Board had requested regarding the location of existing signs. The Board determined that the welcome signs should read "Palms to Pines East" or "Palms to Pines West" depending on which side of Plaza Way the signs are located. In addition, they believed the two signs proposed for the intersec- tion of Plaza Way and El Paseo are unnecessary. Conditions #5, #6, and #7 were added to the Conditions of Approval to reflect these determinations. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the sign program be approved as modified and subject to the conditions of approval . Motion carried 3-0 (Urrutia, Hobbs, Minturn) , Leung abstained. 3. CASE NO. 58SA, ROY WILLIAM CARVER, APPLICANT Request for approval of sign program for a commercial structure located in El Paseo Square. Mr. Cipriani informed the Board that this case had been referred back to the DRB by the Planning Commission. After the Design Review Board's first review, staff had been made aware of the fact that the applicant has approval of the sign program stemming back to September 7, 1976 and that the applicant's most recent request would only modify the approved sign program by reducing the length of the facia signs from 12 feet to 8 feet. The Planning Commission wanted the DRB to review the case once again in light of this new information. Mr. Minturn made a motion that would have approved the applicant's original sign program and their recently requested modification. However, his motion died for the lack of a second. A motion was then made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Urrutia which re- affirmed the Board's previous decision and approved the sign program as modified by the Board at their May 24, 1977 meeting. Motion carried 2-1 (Yes - Hobbs and Urrutia) (No - Minturn) , Leung abstained. err 4. CASE NO. 55C, AL KURI , APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a commercial structure to be located on the north side of El Paseo, west of Sage Lane. The discussion of this case centered around the actual location of the pro- posed structure on the site. Mr. Leung indicated that the proposed building as shown, encroached into the rear parking easement so that the plan would have to be revised. The Board agreed that the pitch of the tiled area on the facade would have to be decreased as it posed a potential threat by lying at the angle shown. Mr. Hill indicated that he had discussed the proposed wrought iron gates with the applicant informing the applicant that they would either yam,,, Minutes Palm Desert Design Review Board June 7, 1977 Page Two have to be removed or remain open at any and all times during which any of the offices or stores are occupied in order to meet fire and building codes. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Leung that the preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans be rejected. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Urrutia, Minturn). %W 5. CASE NO. 74MF, DILLMAN & DILLMAN, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a duplex to be located on the east side of Panorama and south of El Camino. The Board rejected this case as the design of the proposed structure is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the Board believed that the design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable environment for its occupants not its neighbors nor is it aesthetically of good composition, materials, and texture. Condition #9 was deleted as Mr. Hill indicated it did not apply in the present case. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn to reject the pre- liminary site, floor, and elevation plans. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Urrutia, Minturn). 6. CASE NO. 53C, CARL COX, APPLICANT Request for approval of new elevations and revised site plan for an existing restaurant located south of El Paseo and East of Lantana. u. The Board had no objections to the new addition. Discussion centered around the entrance gate and valet parking station. Mr. Urrutia stated that there was a weak relationship between the main structure and the entrance gate. He suggested the applicant devote further study to the problem. The Board indicated that the signs were not being approved. Mr. Hobbs suggested the applicant might consider a reduction in the height of the gates and Mr. Leung suggested additional study with regard to the relationship between planar surfaces. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Leung to approve the new elevations and site plan and to require the applicant to study the entrance gates further and present a revised plan for them at a future date. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Urrutia, Minturn) . 7. CASE NO. 75MF, SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a 217-unit condominium project to be located at Ironwood Country Club. The Board added a condition, Condition #11, which requires the applicant to explore the feasibility of solar heating for all swimming pools. Mr. Hobbs asked the applicant why the one proposed swimming pool which is located near a fairway coundn't be re-located to another area across the street. The ap- plicant indicated that the site Mr. Hobbs was referring to was unsuitable for a pool due to the slope. Mr. Urrutia indicated that the Design Review Board was considering the fairways as a part of the overall site plan so that ap- proval of the preliminary site plan would include approval of the fairways. ' " Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 7, 1977 Page Three A motion was made by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Hobbs to approve the preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans including the fairways, but that the landscaping adjacent to the dwelling units would be considered on June 21, 1977. Motion carried 3-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Minturn) , Urrutia abstained. 8. CASE NO. 76MF, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT INC. , APPLICANT our Request for approval of preliminary and final site, floor, and elevation plans for a 193-unit condominium project to be located west of Highway 74 adjacent to the Mountainback Development. After a lengthy discussion, the Board decided to require that all buildings within 150 feet of Highway 74 be limited to single story for aesthetic reasons. The applicant protested this condition indicating it would cause hardship in terms of re-design at this state of the process. Upon hearing the applicant's appeal , the Board decided to abstain from the case as they believed their in- put was being requested too late in the review process to be able to enforce the requirement of single story units on Highway 74 without causing unnecessary hardship to the applicant. In addition to the single story issue, the DRB urged the applicant to explore the feasibility of solar heating for all of the swimming pools and they informed the applicant that the landscaping would be reviewed at the next DRB meeting. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the DRB abstain from the case and forward their comments to the Planning Commission for consideration. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Minturn, Urrutia) . 9. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. C RALPH CIPRIAN , ASSOCIATE PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALI'FORNIA RCJmj two