Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-28 MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 28, 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: Ron Gregory Rick Holden Phyllis Jackson Bernie Leung MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Cook Vern Barton Charlie Martin STAFF PRESENT: Ramon A. Diaz Stan Sawa Steve Smith Patricia Armitage III. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the minutes of the September 14, 1982, meeting were approved as written. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Mr. Leung abstained) IV. CASES: CASE NO: 239 MF APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUNRISE COMPANY, 41-500 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final landscape plan approval for Lakes Country Club. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street. ZONE: PR-4, S.P. The board reviewed the final landscape plans at the study session with Mr. Phil Smith and Mr. Keith Novak, representatives of the Sunrise Company at which time they determined the plans were acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Leung, the board approved the final landscape plans as submitted. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. CASE NO: 90 C - JANICE SCHOEN - Reconsideration of denial of a time extension for this case. LOCATION: South side of El Paseo, west of Sage Lane. ZONE: C-1 Mr. Diaz informed the board that Mrs. Schoen had contacted staff after receiving a letter regarding design review board's findings and denial of a time extension. He indicated that he had scheduled this case for this meeting since Mrs. Schoen disagreed with their findings and wanted an opportunity to appeal the denial. - 1 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 Mrs. Schoen was not present but Mr. Leung indicated that he would represent her case. He stated that a lot of time and money was spent redesigning the working drawings, on preparation of real estate forms and on lawyers, the case is not at a stage of preliminary drawing, it is at the stage where all the plans have been approved. He felt the board should realize that it would not be economically feasible for her to build at this time due to the state of the economy. Ms. Jackson indicated that one of her concerns was that the building be aesthetically compatible with other buildings in the area. Mr. Leung replied that in terms of design it would not conflict with the city's design criteria. Mr. Holden felt the plans weren't clear as far as showing whether there would be solar protection. Mr. Leung stated that there would be no south, east or west exposures. All of the other windows would be under cover. He added that at the time they had submitted the plans, the energy conservation concerns had been met. Mr. Gregory asked if a final landscape plan had ever been submitted. He felt that since he is partially responsible for authorizing the landscaping in the city, he would want to review the plans. Mr. Leung replied that the plans were in a working drawing stage and asked if the time extension could be granted subject to the landscaping being reviewed and approved. Mr. Diaz indicated that it might be inappropriate to condition a time extension. In addressing Mr. Gregory's concern, he stated that in all probability what will happen is that when the building is built and sold, the new owner would resubmit new landscape plans. Ms. Jackson asked if this was a second request for a time extension. Mr. Smith indicated that the first extension was dated August, 1979, which would make this the third time extension. Mr. Holden felt that the board should treat everybody fairly, since new applicants would be subject to stringent energy conservation requirements and would have to design their buildings to be aesthetically compatible with others in the city, the same rules should apply to people requesting time extensions. Mr. Leung stated that if the city ordinance had not changed and the plans had been approved based on said ordinance, then the board should abide by that decision. In response to Mr. Leung's remark, Mr. Holden stated that the board has to be concerned with aesthetics, if its only concern was that the applicant comply with the ordinance, then there would be no reason to have a design review board. Mr. Leung reminded the board that the plans were approved by Mr. Eric Johnson, Mr. Frank Urrutia and a few members presently on the board, all professionals, that it is a matter of principal. The board was informed by Mr. Diaz, that there was no quorum when the plans were approved, the motion to approve the plans was made by Environmental Services Director Paul Williams. In terms of legality, the reason for time extensions is for the purpose of approving or denying a case for whatever reasons the board feels are warranted.He added that the board is under no obligation to reaffirm the decision of past boards. If it feels the concerns have been addressed by Mr. Leung, then the time extension should be granted. - 2 - *ftw DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 The board felt that Mr. Leung had addressed its concerns and it would be appropriate to reconsider its decision by granting the time extension. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the board approved the time extension subject to a landscape plan being submitted and approved by the board prior to the building being built. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Mr. Leung abstained). V. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Leung, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. S SMITH, Ass ciate Planner /pa - 3 -