Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-10 � � P�INUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 10, 1978 1 . The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall , after an hour study session. Members present: George Minturn Frank Urrutia Phyllis Jackson Eric Johnson � Jim Hill Members absent: Paul A. Williams Bernie Leung Staff present: Ralph Cipriani , Associate Planner Clyde Beebe, Director of Public Works Kathy Shorey, Planning Secretary It was moved by Jackson, seconded by Minturn to approve the minutes of December 27, 1977. Motion carried 4-0 (Minturn, Urrutia, Jackson, Johnson) . 2. �ase No. 67C - Chairman Johnson suggested that this case be discussed later on in the meeting. 3. Case No. 102MF - C. G. DUNHAM - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for - condominiums to be located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive, east of Lupine and west of Sun Lodge. Applicant present. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the case noting that the new submittal showing the elevations was not as the Board had suggested. There was a discussion with regard to the driveways on Shadow Mountain, Lupine and Sun Lodge. Mr. Urrutia noted that the walls were misleading and that it made the area look very tight, he stated that "�"' the walls should be a 3 foot maximum in the private areas. He also suggested that the cosmetic treatment be simplified as this would help the tightness of the area. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the Desigrt Review and Special Conditions noting that No. 1 should read: "The site plan shall be modified. in order to eliminate driveway openings on Lupine Lane and Sun Lodge Lane as indicated on the Revised Exhibit A on file with the Department of Environmental Services. Driveways shall be designed so that no vehicle shall back ou� into the public righ�ts-of-way. " - No. 2 and 3 should be deleted. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Urrutia, the case was approved with the conditions as noted; carried unanimously 4-0 (Johnson , Jackson, Urrutia, Minturn) . 4. Case No. 80MF - ALVIN JOHNSON - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for duplexes to be located on the northwest corner of Shadow h1ountain and Ocotillo. Applicant present. The case was reviewed by Mr. Cipriani and he noted that the plans had been sub- mitted before and that the applicant had a new architect and the plans were much better. He also noted that the applicant will request an adjustment for the rear- yard setback. ,� Mr. Johnson noted that the landscaping should flow better and that � drip irriga- tion system should be used in the final drawings . Mr. Hill noted that Condition No. 7 should be deleted as it does not apply to duplexes. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the case was approved subject to the conditions; carried unanimously 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Urrutia, Minturn) . � � , .' Minutes Design Review Board January 10, 1978 Page Two 5. Case No. 70C - GEORGE RITTER - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a commercial structure to be located on the south side of Highway 111 , west of Sage Lane. Applicant not present. I�9r. Cipriani noted the addition of two conditions - No. 6 - Color and material samples shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval at time of submittal of final construction drawings. - No. 7 - The location of trash enclosures shall be indicated on the final construction drawings. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by P�7inturn, the case was approved subject ,� to the conditions; carried unanimously 4-0 (Johnson, Jackson, Minturn, Urrutia) . 2. Case No. 67C - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - Preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a commercial project to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Highway 74. Applicant present. Mr. Urrutia noted that the two main concerns of the Board are still present, wh�ch are: the location of the market on the corner and the traffic problem. Mrs. Jackson noted that this is zoned for Scenic Highway Preservation and the concern is whether the project could comply with this. Mr. Roberts, representing Hughes Investments , stated that the traffic report had been provided and that a traffic engineer would be present at the Planning Commission meeting. He then presented new renderings showing that the Safeway building had been reduced by 4900 sq. ft. and that� the shops had been increased slightly. He also noted the entrance on Highway i4 nad been revised. Mr. Beebe stated that another concern was the trucks making delivery and their accessibility to the area. He stated that he would like �o see the driveway on Highway 74 to be a right turn entrance only. Mr. Beebe also noted that he had discussed the case with Mr. Bouman and that he had stated that no decisions had been made rec�arding this case during discussions with the appli- �; cant. He also noted that it will take over a year for a traffic signal to be installed at the corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 74. Mr. Roberts stated that the projects completion date is projected at from 1 year to 18 months, which would be in line with the traffic signal installation. There was some further discussion with regard to the date that the traffic study was taken, and the strength of the report if it is not current informa- tion due to the growth in the area in the past two years. Mr. Hill stated that he thought there was some specifications involved with re- gard to scenic preservation overlay on a highway involving height limits and setback. Mr. Roberts stated �that if this was part of the conditions, thev would comply. P•1r. Cipriani stated this would be clarified. � There was further discussion with reqard to the height of the buildings , the elevations, and the large building on the corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 74, also the landscaping. Some discussion insued with regard to the easement and the possible relocation of the Safeway building. h1r. Bill Hughes spoke, noting that the property owners ' association would have to give the okay before a building could be put on the easement. Mr. Hill and �1r. Cipriani indicated that they believed that when the parking areas of proposed developments are required to be dedicated as easements to the City, through the Redevelopment Agency, any existing ease- ments are thereby super�eded. In addition , 1�1r. Cipriani indicated that if ,,,� it were in the best interest of the City of Palm Desei~t to relocate the grocery stare to the eastern portion of the sit�;: . he doubted that the property owners ' association would prohibit such a relocation even though it encroached within the existing easement if the easement was not superseded by the acquisition of the parking area easement by the Redevelopment Agency. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn to continue the case with the addition of Condition No. 8 and a directive to Staff to obtain a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the possible relocation of the grocery store in light of the existing easement; carried unanimously 4-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Johnson, Urrutia) . � � Minutes Design Review Board January 10, 1978 Page Th�ee 6. Case No. 71C - LAUREL DEVELOPMENT C0. - Preliminary site, floor and elevations or a commercial structure to be located on the west side of Highway 111 at the Rancho MirageJPalm Desert City Limits. Applicant present. Mr. Beebe noted that the applicant should obtain input from Caltrans with regard to exit-entrances on Highway 111 . Some discussion followed with regard to the delivery trucks and where they +� would make their deliveries. Mr. Beebe noted that the front door should be relocated for easier accessibility. It was suggested that the building be moved forward 5 feet, the sidewalks elimi- nated and a 2 foot landscaping strip be provided along the front and rear of the structure. Mr. Urrutia noted that the exterior treatment should blend in with the existing buildings in the area and incorporate the landscaping into the design. All the landscaping of the entire building should blend together and the applicant should utilize heavier plant material and lean away from sparse desert material . The main concerns of the Board are: 1 ) traffic coming in; 2) parking in rear; 3) elevations; and, 4) landscaping. Mr. Hill stated that since there is no mezzanine in the front, there is no need for the height of the building in front, only in the rear. It was noted that the facade in front, as the picture indicates, only enhances the height of the building. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn, the case was continued to the meeting of January 24, 1978, to give the applicant time to address the concerns of the Board; carried unanimously 3-0 (Minturn, Johnson, Urrutia). � Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. � ��,��� KATHY SHORE , Planning cretary /ks �