HomeMy WebLinkAbout0929 MINUTES
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 1977
Present: Planning Commissioners: George Berkey
George Kryder
Walt Snyder
Gloria Kelly
Charles Reading
Design Review Board Members: Eric Johnson
Frank Urrutia
Bill Hobbs
George Minturn
Others Present: Paul A. Williams
Jim Hill
Phyllis Jackson
Ralph Cipriani
Sam Freed
Clyde Beebe
I. Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. He gave a brief back-
ground of the Design Review process in Palm Desert. He indicated that the
purpose of the meeting was to consider several recommendations that, if im-
plemented, might have the effect of streamlining the Design Review process.
II. The first recommendation considered involved the concept of exclusive review
of final construction plans by the Design Review Board. Both the Board and
the Commissioners agreed that Planning Commission review of final construction
plans is a repetitious and unncessary exercise. In addition to reducing the
workload of the Commission, all present agreed that if this recommendation
were implemented, the amount of time involved for contractors and developers
in getting their plans through plan check would be reduced considerably.
The second item discussed related to the possibility of having only the Design
Review Board review sign plans valued over $1000. Chairman Berkey's views
were representative of the Commission 's thoughts on the subject when he stated
that as signs can be a very controversial issue, he would like to see sign
plans and programs for informational purposes. It was agreed that the procedure
now utilized in reviewing signs continued to be used.
Third item. After considerable discussion, it was decided that combining DRB
review of preliminary architectural and site layout with Planning Commission
review of Conditional Use Permit or Development Plan proposals would be desirable.
As a result, the Planning Commission would have the DRB's comments before it
acted and the review process thereby shortened. Other implications of the pro-
posed change would be the necessity of submitting a more complete application
package by the developer and the developer's costs might be increased slightly
by the change in procedure.
III . Other Matters
Commissioner Kryder expressed interest in the philosophy behind the DRB's de-
cisions, for example, when do you recommend slumpblock as opposed to concrete
block walls. Mr. Urrutia replied that the architects and designers on the DRB
were professionally trained in composition, texture, and use of various materials
firâ–º and were rendering their best professional opinion, within the context of cost
and design goals.
Mr. Urrutia brought up a second item about the past similarity of architectural
styles in many of the buildings approved by the DRB and Planning Commission and
wondered if there was support at the Commission level for more innovation in
building design. The Commission members agreed that this was the case.
Minutes
Joint Meeting
Planning Commission - Design Review Board
September 29, 1977 Page Two
III. Other Matters (Continued)
Mr. Urrutia's last comment dealt with the DRB meetings themselves. He
suggested that it might improve communication if a Planning Commission
member were present to observe each DRB meeting. He also thought that
the staff should make its presence felt more strongly at DRB meetings
by making a recommendation on each case. Mr. Williams pointed out that
the DRB was originally created to put design decisions in the hands of
people with the expertise that the staff did not possess. The Commis-
sioners agreed to attend DRB meetings on a rotating basis.
RALPH J. CIPRIANI , Associate Planner
As