Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-29 '. � ;,�,, MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 29, 1977 5:00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. The Board members were called together in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall at 4: 15 p.m. by Paul Williams for a study session review of tlie cases on the agenda. Members Present: Bill Hobbs, George Minturn, Eric Johnson, Jim Hill, and Paul A. Williams (temporary voting member to main- tain a quorum) � Members Absent: Bernie Lueng, Frank Urrutia Others Present: Sam Freed, Ralph Cipriani After a one hour and twenty-five minute study session, the meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. It was moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the minutes of the previous meeting of March 8, 1977 be approved as written. Motion carried 4-0 (Minturn, Hobbs, Johnson, Williams). 2. CASE N0. 149SF, DON OSTER for NEIL ADKINS Review of grading plan for a single-family residence to be located north of Ironwood and Goldenrod. Don Oster and Neil Adkins were present. The grading plan was reviewed by the DRB and a compromise was arrived at by the Board whereby the pad would be elevated sufficiently to eliminate drain- age and run-off problems while, at the same time, cause no adverse effects to surrounding property owners. The primary concern of the property owners, prior to the meeting, appears to have been centered around possible adverse visual effects. Mr. Williams stated that the residence would pose no line- of-sight problems because of its low elevation. He suggested an amendment to explain this finding. Mr. Hobbs believed the line-of-sight consideration ;�, was not the primary issue the Board was presently concerned with. However, other Board members felt this point would be an issue should an appeal be filed at a later date by persons opposing the approval height of the pad. There was no opposition expressed at the meeting when the DRB concluded a 12" pad would be appropriate. A motion was made by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the grading plan be approved with the condition that the pad be constructed 12" above the center line of the street. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Minturn, Williams, John- son). 3. CASE N0. 49C, SAN DIEGO FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, APPLICANT Request for preliminary approval of site, floor, and elevation plans for a new savings and loan building to be located south of Highway 111 and west of San Pablo extended. Representative of the applicant present. A representative of the applicant was informed by the DRB that Caltrans would have to be contacted to obtain an encroachment permit in order to landscape a portion of the subject property located within the State's right-of-way. The DRB then requested that Condition No. 15 be amended so that a 3' berm be constructed in place of a masonry wall on the east, north, and west sides of the customer parking area and 2' of additional landscaping be provided �rrr around the parking lot. In addition, wheel stops would no longer be neces- sary in the parking lot. Mr. Williams informed the applicant's representa- tive that the square footage in Condition No. 8 should read "three (3) square feet" with reference to the drive-in teller sign and customer parking sign rather than "four (4) square f eet". The applicant's representative expressed a desire to have four signs on the subject property. Mr. Hobbs stated that this was a case of a distinctive building, considering the blue tile roof, on a highly visible site, so that the DRB believed four signs would be unnecessary. The applicant's represen- tative stated he was under the impression that at least three signs would be permitted at all times during the previous DRB meeting. He added that the blue tile roof is no longer exclusively identified with San Diego Federal '. � '�r�,r �✓ MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 29, 1977 Page Two Savings as other commercial enterprises are using it. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the applicant be permitted 2 long signs, one time and temperature sign and one logo. All four of these signs are to be placed on the structure, the actual location on the walls being at the applicant's discretion. The motion carried 4-0 (Johnson, Aobbs, Williams, Minturn) . '� The applicant's representative expressed a willingness to comply with this requirement and requested time to determine the actual location of the per- mitted signs on the structure. The DRB subsequently approved "Navaho" as the color for the stucco in Con- dition No. 17 and stated that the directional signs should be blue and white. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the case be approved subject to all conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Minturn, Williams, Johnson). 4. CASE N0. 51C, HMS PLAZA WEST, APPLICANT Review of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for an office and retail complex located on the southwest corner of El Paseo and Lantana. After some discussion, the DRB decided to change the minimum size of box trees in Condition No. 16 from 12" to 20". It was moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Hobbs to approve the case subject to all conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Williams, Minturn, Johnson). . 5. CASE N0. 52C, WILLIAM STEWART, APPLICANT '�rrr Review of preliminary site plan and elevations for a retail/off ice building located on the south side of Highway 111 between Portola and San Luis Rey. It was moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Minturn to approve the pre- liminary site plan and elevations subject to all conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Minturn, Johnson, Williams) . 6. CASE N0. 42C, ROGER MEYER� APPLICANT Review of construction plans for a retail/office complex to be located on the north side of Highway 111 west of De Anza. Representative of applicant present. The DRB decided to delete Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 2. With respect to Condition No. 4, Mr. Johnson suggested that the applicant supplant ficus retuse with fan palms and that these be a minimum of 8'. The DRB clarif ied Condition No. 5 requiring a 24" box for the tree in the courtyard. Mr. Johnson suggested that the applicant consider another type tree for the courtyard as olive trees can be a maintenance problem. The DRB added Condition No. 8 which would require the placement of two tiles to each street tree opening in order to encourage deep rooting. � It was moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the case be approved with the amended conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Minturn, Williams, Johnson. '. '�r,r� ,�rr� MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 29, 1977 Page Three 7. CASE N0. 43C, CURT DUNHAM, APPLICANT Review of construction plans for a retail complex - Plaza Taxco II - to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Sage Lane. Applicant present. The DRB informed the applicant that the minimum tree sizes in Condition No. 1 were being increased from a 12" to 20" box. Among other suggestions, Mr. Johnson recommended that the applicant use euculyptus citriodora widely �"` and eliminate English Ivy as it burns easily. Mr. Williams asked the appli- cant to resubmit a landscape plan to reflect the appropriate changes. It was moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Minturn to approve the construction plans on the condition that a revised landscape plan will be submitted. Motion carried 4-0 (Williams, Minturn, Johnson, Hobbs). 8. CASE N0. 33MF - SUNRISE CORPORATION, APPLICANT Review of construction plans for an 80-unit condominium project to be located west of Monterey and 660 feet north of Park View Drive. Repre- sentative of applicant present. With regard to Condition No. 5, the applicant's representative expressed a desire by the applicant to have the city underground specific power lines south of the project. Mr. Williams said the p�°oper procedure ta obt.ain such a request would be to petition the City Council who would then make a deter- mination. The applicant�s representative then referred to Condition No. 6 and asked the DRB if it would be acceptable if they could continue to construct a rolled curb as they were presently installing in Rancho Mirage. For the sake of uniformity, the DRB expressed approval of this action. � The DRB agreed that Condition No. 10 which requires a split rail fence, would not have to be complied with if the project to the south has provided a fence at the time of final inspection. Mr. Williams stated that the County ordinance would be utilized with regard to the pool fencing requirement. Therefore, a pool fence would not be required as the development is walled and has a gate. The DRB then eliminated Condition No. 13. The discussion then moved to Condition No. 14, which involves the minimum size of garages. The applicant's representative stated that this condition presents a problem as the units have already been sold. As a result, any alterations made with regard to the size of garages, if they should in turn alter the floor plans out of necessity, would raise many questions and bring complaints by the buyers. The DRB stated that it was not their intention to create any unreasonable situations or requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant meet with staff in order to resolve any problem stemming from Condition No. 14. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the case be approved subject to all conditions and a resolution of Conditions No. 14 with staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Minturn, Hobbs, Johnson, Williams) . 9. CASE N0. 32NLF, RICHARD COFFIN, APPLICANT iYrrn A request for an extension of time of DRB approval regarding a 13-unit apart- ment complex to be located on the southeast corner of Santa Rosa and San Pas- cual. The DRB decided to require curbs and gutters on both Santa Rosa and San Pascual as a condition of approval rather than just on San Pascual. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson to approve a one-year time extension subject to all conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Minturn, Williams, Johnson, Hobbs) . . _ � ""�" MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 29, 1977 Page Four 10. CASE N0. 63MF, MARRAKESH BUILDING & COUNTRY CLUB, APPLICANT Review of construction plans for an 18-unit condominium project to be located at E1 Hasson Circle. The DRB deleted Conditions No. 6 and No. 11. It was moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Minturn to approve the case subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Williams, Johnson, '� Minturn). 11. CASE N0. 64MF, STEPHEN HERMAN, APPLICANT A review of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a private health club to be located north of Alessandro and 420 feet east of Portola Avenue. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn to approve the case subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Minturn, Williams, John- son). 12. CASE N0. 187SF, ROBERT WILLARD, APPLICANT Request to utilize revised roof material on single-family residence being constructed at Tamarisk, east of Desert Lily. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Williams that the request be denied. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Johnson, Williams, Minturn). 13. CASE N0. 65MF, FRED RICE, APPLICAPdT Review of construction plans for a 7�J-unit final phase of Portola Del Sol to be located east of Portola, north of Catalina Way extended. wrrrY The DRB requested a new landscape plan. This plan should reflect the DRB's desire to have Mexican Ash or a similar type tree replace the euculyptus shown on the present plan. These trees should be fifteen gallon size rather than the 12" variety as previously stated in Condition No. 14. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the case be approved, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (For: Johnson, Hobbs, Minturn - Against: Williams). 14. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ��� '' �f i'� -� .�,,'/�, / '''F /:'�/ RALPH J. C RIANI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA il�rr