Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes No 149PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 149 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF MAY 11, 1976. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did receive the recommendations of the Design Review Board pertaining to the cases from its meeting of May 11, 1976; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has recommended that the following be approved subject to the attached conditions: CASE NO. 29C - WATERFALL and McCORMICK Preliminary site plan and elevations for a 7,750 square foot office/retail building located south of Highway 111 and west of El Paseo (C-1, S.P.) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon receiving and considering the testimony and arguments of all persons who desired to be heard, did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve said project: 1. That the proposed development conforms to all legally adopted development standards. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detri- mental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan of the City. 4. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. 5. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which it is located and all other applicable requirements. -1- ''-olution No. 149 6. The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission. 2. That it does hereby approve the above listed case, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, held on May 18, 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, VAN DE MARK, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD May 11, 1976 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Desert Review Board was called to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall. This meeting was tape recorded. Members Present: Frank Urrutia Mike Buccino George Minturn Paul Williams* Staff Present: Sam Freed Others Present: Gloria Kelly John Outcault Bill Hobbs Bernard Leung Jim Hill* Harold McCormick I. The minutes of the meeting of April 20, 1976 were reviewed by the members. Mr. Buccino moved and Mr. Hobbs seconded that the minutes be approved as written. Motion carried 5-0 (Urrutia, Hobbs, Buccino, Leung, Minturn) II. Case No. 29C - F. WATERFALL and H. McCORMICK - Review of preliminary site plan and elevations for a 7750 sq. ft. office -retail building on the south side of Highway 111 and west of El Paseo. (C-1, S.P.) Harold McCormick was present representing the applicants. Bill Hobbs was concerned whether the 2.5 ft. parapet would be sufficient to screen the roof equipment from Highway 111. Mr. Urrutia and Mr. Buccino suggested that the sidewalk on El Paseo be reduced from the regular 10 feet to 6 feet, with the remaining 4 feet being added to the landscaping. A detailed set of construction plans will be submitted for review at a later date, including a color and material sample board. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Buccino that the plans be approved subject to the attached conditions and the above revisions. Motion carried 5-0 (Urrutia, Hobbs, Buccino, Leung, Minturn) III. Case No. 36MF - JOMO DEVELOPMENT - Review of preliminary site and floor plans and elevations for a 4-unit residential planned unit development on the west side of Ocotillo Drive, south of Tumbleweed Lane. (R-3-18,000 (3), S.P.) It was moved by Mr. Buccino and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the project be approved, subject to later review by the Design Review Board of a grading plan. Motion defeated 4-1 (Aye - Minturn, Nay - Hobbs, Buccino, Leung, Urrutia). Mr. Urrutia felt that the grading plan could significantly affect the project design and wanted to see it before approving the preliminary site plan. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the case be deferred until the applicant could bring in a grading plan. Motion approved 5-0 (Urrutia, Hobbs, Buccino, Leung, Minturn). IV. Case No. 14SA - SANTA FE FEDERAL SAVINGS - Review of changes to sign program for the Santa Fe Federal Savings office in the Palms to Pines Shopping Center. (P.C. (3)) It was moved by Mr. Leung and seconded by Mr. Hobbs that the case be deferred until the next meeting so that the staff could provide photos of the existing sign program. Motion carried 5-0 (Urrutia, Hobbs, Buccino, Leung, Minturn). V. Discussion of Hexadome building system. - Members of the Design Review Board reviewed a set of plans and speci- fications for a typical Hexadome structure. Mr. Urrutia could not give a yes or no answer to whether this building would be appropriate for Palm Desert without seeing a specific plan for a precise location and type of use. He considers the geodesic dome concept to be a useful, low cost form of construction. Leung was more negative. He considered it to be a "strange form: which would have difficulty gaining acceptance within established residential areas. VI. The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Hobbs, seconded by Mr. Buccino, and unanimously approved. (Commercial) resolution No. 149 Nwe CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 29C 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A & B), and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City, and other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. 3. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly com- pleted. 4. Any roof mounted, exhaust or air-conditioning equipment shall be fully concealed from view from any public rights -of -way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. All existing overhead distribution and new service utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall submit a cash deposit for a pro-rata share of the costs of undergrounding the overhead utility distribution lines. 6. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb cuts, and tie-in paving along the full frontage of the property on the South Frontage Road and El Paseo shall be provided in conformance with Riverside County Standards as a part of construction. The sidewalk on El Paseo shall be reduced to six (6) feet in width located adjacent to the curb. The remainder shall be put into landscaping. Street trees shall be deleted. 7. A noncombustible trash storage area 9'6" x 6'0" in area shall be pro- vided where shown on the site plan. 8. Signage shall be provided in accordance with signage plan to be submitted to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for final approval. 9. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 10. Elevations are approved as shown. 11. A detailed set of construction plans, including but not limited to landscaping, irrigation, fencing, exterior lighting, color/material sample board, and trash storage plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for approval prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. I have read and fully understand the above listed Conditions of Approval. (Applicant Signature) (Date)