Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes No 165PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 165 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING ITS FINDINGS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 20, 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 July 20, 1976; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has recommended that the following cases be approved subject to the attached conditions: 1. Case No. 37MF - GLEN VENTLING - Review of a grading plan and fence plan for a 12-unit apartment project on the west side of Ocotillo Drive. 2. Case No. 38MF - CORSICAN VILLAS PROPERTY OWNERS - Perimeter fence plan for a 130-unit condominium project, located west of Portola Avenue and south of Silver Spur Trail. 3. Case No. 39MF - FRED RICE - Final working drawings for a 100-unit planned residential development on the east side of Portola Avenue at Catalina Way. 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 Case No. 37MF and Case No. 38MF, and to refer Case No. 39MF back to the Design Review Board: 1. That the proposed developments conform to all legally adopted development standards. 2. That the design and location of the proposed developments and their relationship to neighboring, existing, or proposed developments and traffic is such that they will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or proposed developments, and that they will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 3. That the design and location of the proposed developments are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and are not detri- mental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan of the City. esolution No. 165 4. That the design and location of the proposed developments would provide a desirable environment for their occupants, as well as for their neighbors and that they are aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures, and colors. 5. The proposed uses must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which they are located and all other applicable requirements. 6. The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. 7. That Case No. 39MF is to be referred back to the Design Review Board for further review reference color scheme samples and maintenance costs. 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 Case No. 37MF and Case No. 38MF, subject to their attached conditions. 3. That it does hereby recommend that Case No. 39MF be referred back to the Design Review Board for the above listed reasons. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a continued meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, held on the 27th day of July, 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, VAN DE MARK, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MILLS, WILSON ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: GEORGE BERKEY, VICE-CHAIRMAN -2- Nose MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 20, 1976 1. The Design Review Board meeting of July 20, 1976, was called to order at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall. Members present: Steve Fleshman (representing Paul A. Williams) Sam Freed (representing Jim Hill) George Minturn Frank Urrutia Members absent: Mike Buccino, Bill Hobbs, Bernard Leung Others present: Gloria Kelly, Don Shayler, John Belew The minutes of the meeting of July 6, 1976, were reviewed and it was moved by Mr. Fleshman and seconded by Mr. Urrutia that the minutes be approved. Motion carried 4-0. 2. CASE NO. 40MF - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - Review of landscaping, grading, floor plans, and elevations for 130 condominium units in a 36 acre sub- division in the Ironwood Country Club, located south of Portola and east of Mariposa. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Fleshman to approve the project, subject to 10 conditions plus an eleventh condition requiring approval of construction plans by the Design Review Process. Motion carried 3-0 (Fleshman, Freed, Minturn) with Mr. Urrutia abstaining. The DRB suggested that different roof tile colors could be used and should be reviewed with the other construction plans. 3. CASE NO. 37MF - GLEN VENTLING - Review of a grading plan and partial fence plan for a 12-unit apartment project on the west side of Ocotillo, south of Tumbleweed Lane. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Freed that the plans be approved. Motion carried 4-0. 4. CASE NO. 38MF - CORSICAN VILLAS - Perimeter fence plan for 130-unit condominium project, located west of Portola and south of Silver Spur Trail. It was moved by Mr. Freed and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the plans be approved. Motion carried 4-0. 5. CASE NO. 39MF - FRED RICE - Review of final working drawings fora 100- unit planned residential development on the east side of Portola at Cata- lina Way. The DRB was concerned at the potential high maintenance costs that might be created by the project and amended Condition No. 6 to require the de- veloper to submit a detailed landscaping and irrigation system for review. It was moved by Mr. Fleshman and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the plans be approved, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried 4-0. 6. CASE NO. 32C - L. H. GILLIGAN - Consideration of preliminary plans for a 10,000 square foot retail/office building on the south side of Highway 111, east of Portola. It was moved by Mr. Minturn that the plans be rejected. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fleshman. The following reasons were given: (1) The design does not comply with off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and (2) The building design and site plan do not relate to sur- rounding development. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. '647 Assistant, Planner -1-