Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-14 1 A MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 14, 1982 2:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m., after a one hour study session. II. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vern Barton Al Cook Ron Gregory Rick Holden MEMBERS ABSENT: Bernie Leung Charles Martin STAFF PRESENT: Ramon A. Diaz Stan Sawa Steve Smith Patricia Armitage III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the minutes of the November 23, 1982, meeting were approved as written. Motion Carried 3-0-1 with Mr. Holden abstaining. IV. CASES Final drawings or items not requiring planning commission confirmation: 1. CASE NO: 62 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOXX ASSOCIATES, 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260, ATTN: MR. JACK KROUSS, (Galleria Building). NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revisions to existing building. LOCATION: 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert ZONE: C-1 The board reviewed revisions to the plan of the existing building at the study session and felt they were acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Holden, the board approved the revisions to the plans. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Preliminary plans requiring planning commission confirmation at its meeting of December 21, 1982: 1. CASE NO: 178 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH, 73-730 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260, THAYER & CANDY, 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 208, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 and PAUL ASH CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES, 71-537 Highway 111, Suite A, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. N"10` DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 CASE NO. 178 C (CONTINUED) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of Phase I, signs, landscaping, irrigation and fencing. LOCATION: South side Hovley Lane between Monterey and Portola. ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Smith indicated that this application was before the board for approval of the Phase I plans for landscaping, signs, irrigation and fencing of the Desert Evangelical Free Church to be located on the south side of Hovley Lane between Monterey and Portola. Staffs concerns related to the size of the proposed sign which is limited to a maximum of 20 square feet, the proposed cross which should be reviewed and approved by the board prior to its installation and the landscape and irrigation plans which were reviewed by Mr. Gregory at the study session, with several changes recommended. The parking lot plan was acceptable. The site would be surrounded on the east, south and west by a six foot block wall, the south wall already exists, the west wall will go in with Phase I and the east wall will go in with Phase II. Mr. Gregory understood that the planting was geared towards low maintenance but although he felt the basic concept would be okay, he felt the applicant would have trouble with the materials indicated in the plans due to the climate. He recommended that a sixth condition (delineated below) be added addressing his recommendations. The board was concerned over the size and location of the berm across the front of the lot. The height of the berm should be in relation to the parking lot level. On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the preliminary plans for Phase I of the Desert Evangelical Free Church were approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That the proposed sign be revised to comply with the sign ordinance limit of a maximum of 20 square feet; Condition No 4 as listed in the staff report shall be deleted as a condition for this approval with the understanding that plans for the fifty foot cross shall be reviewed and approved by the board prior to its fabrication and the following Condition listed as Condition No. 5 in the staff report shall become Condition No. 4: 4. That the proposed earthen berm adjacent to Hovley Lane be a constant three feet higher than the street. .r DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 CASE NO. 178 C (CONTINUED) 5. Landscape plan approval shall be revised as follows: A. Baccharis "twin peaks" shall be substituted. B. Malephorea C. Purpurea shall be substituted. C. Mahonia Aquifolium shall be substituted. D. Abelia "Edward Goucher" shall be substituted. E. "Eucalyptus Nudis" shall be corrected on the plans to read "Eucalyptus Rudis". F. The irrigation plan shall be restudied to provide full coverage. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2726 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-IS.P. Mr. Smith indicated that this matter was before the board at its October 26th, 1982, meeting at which time the plans were referred back to the architect in order that they could correct the nonconforming setbacks, improve the north and south elevations and provide additional landscaping on the north side. The building has been reduced in size a small amount and by doing so they have conformed to the setback requirements. The north and south elevations have been altered to have a wood panel inserted on all three elevations. The roof design has been altered slightly with it being extended further to the west. Landscaping has been installed along the north side of the building adjacent to the wall in the manner of three or four planter areas to be planted with Armstrong Junipers. The only remaining concern was that a decorative wall or hedge be located along the San Carlos property line adjacent to the parking area. The board reviewed the plans and felt they were acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the preliminary plans were approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with Conditioon No. 3 being deleted and Condition No. 5 being modified to read that the pole will be relocated. Motion carried 3-0-1 with Mr. Cook abstaining. - 3 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 3. CASE NO: 176 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS, 73-647 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and WILLIAM SEXTON, 71-537 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for an office building. LOCATION: West side of Monterey Avenue, opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. ZONE: R-2 - S.P. Mr. Diaz presented the staff report covering board's concerns raised during its review of the project on October 26, 1982. The building has been reduced in height to 18 feet and minor changes have been made to the west and north elevations. The fins which project from the west and north wall will be painted and scored to match the pilasters on the front of the building. The scoring and use of trees will break up the wall and would satisfy the concerns originally raised by staff. Mr. Diaz then stated that the applicant strongly preferred not to reverse the parking and building locations. Reversing the locations would place the parking area adjacent to existing residential units to the north. The proposal to move the building forward 40 feet from the west property line would result in added parking and traffic circulation adjacent to future R-1 properties. A discussion ensued concerning the north and west building elevations and the pros and cons of reversing the site plan and moving the building forward. Mr. Frank Goodman of the Palm Desert Board of Realtors reiterated the reasons the site plan was as presented and indicated that the applicant supported the recommendations of staff. Discussion then occurred concerning the north elevation and the distance of the building from the property line. Mr. Gregory stated that ten feet would not be a sufficient area to house the size of tree that would break up the northerly wall. The applicant agreed to move the building an additional three feet to the south. Discussion arose concerning the ground treatment at the rear and side of the building and it was concluded that the applicant could pave or gravel that area and place the trees in tree wells. It was moved by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Cook, that preliminary plans be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the following Condition No. 6: 6. That the building shall be moved southerly an additional three feet. Motion carried 4-0. 4. CASE NO: 92 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARIO DELGUIDICE, 56-805 19 Palms Highway, Yucca Valley, CA 92284. - 4 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 CASE NO. 92 C (CONTINUED) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of change to existing exterior elevations for a portion of Las Sombras Center. LOCATION: Within the commercial center at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. ZONE: PC (4) SP Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating the revisions proposed to the existing exterior elevations for a portion of the Las Sombras Center. The board indicated that the applicant could proceed with the interior remodeling but the architect should return with more complete plans in order to address the concerns listed below. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the matter was continued in order that the applicant may address the following concerns: 1. The applicant is to look at the entire facade and indicate how the building will terminate and meet with the adjoining buildings, with the treatment of the arches being the same as the building. 2. Screening of the mechanical equipment should be shown on the plans. 3. A letter must be submitted to the board from the owner approving the changes. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: NONE V. ADJOURNMENT: On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Cook, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. STEVE SMITH, Associate Planner SS/pa - 5 -