Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
134C DAN WAYNE LEE
CITY OF PALM DESERT MEMO'S RECEN 4133 RECEIVED OF: �. way V1-e- L« DATE 140_ 7--oAMOUNT A9 �C:) FOR &� RECEIVED: CIITnY` TREASURER I ACCOUNT' NO. II AMOUNT I CHECKS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO BANK CLEARANCE I r���/�- City of Pail • • Desert .'.`: • 2P0MR9 ISXGZq DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNINGDIVISION FMOWRA39 Sign Maker/Contractor Telephone SIGN REQUEST ( Describe type and purpose of the sign (s).) (TN\ ESTIMATED VALUE OF SIGN (S ) SIGN LOCATION ( Street address, suite no., 411ding /project name, or location In relation to streets) MOvnJ C�J O►J ccv-J�e; _ -r=� e45= SDJ►J o O►- J ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. EXISTING ZONING Property OwnerAuthorizaticn The undersigned states that they are the Owner (s) of the Property described herein and hereby give authorization for the filing of _ this application. /1 Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabili W relative to any deed ristrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES— TRICTIONS THATAKY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. Applicants Signature (FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIGNATU9E \ DATE Accepted by DATE L1 STAFF REVIEW [] DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO.579 'L Reference case no J.i `/ C�- The Sign Review process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert reviews the detailed design of signs prior to the issuance of a building permit. STAFF APPROVED SIGNS UNDER $1000 DEPARTMENT DESIGN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON- REVIEW BUILDING AND APPLICATION MENTAL SERVICES BOARD SAFETY STAFF PROCESSING SCHEDULE: CONSyRUCTION/ PLACEMENT Signs for buildings which have an approved sign program, or existing buildings where the value of the sign is less than $1,000 require 1-4 working days before they may be submitted to Building and Safety Department for an installation permit. Signs valued over $1,000, new programs for existing buildings, and other signs that are referred to the Design Review Board require 10-20 days. In order to facilitate processing, the applicant or a desig- nated representative should attend the Design Review Board meeting to answer questions which may arise regarding the sign(s). STAFF USE ONLY: Date Received ACTOR Date of Meeting ACTION APPLICANT NOTIFIEI Staff DRB P.C. C.C. Department of Environmental Services Form 1 CASE NO. SIGN APPLICATION CHECKLIST INITIAL PLAN REVIEW NOTE: Planning Division Staff are required to reject applications if any applicable exhibits are not received and checked. I. Completed Application Form (one (1) copy) II. Detailed Plot Plan A. Design Review Board and Commission Review/ Approval A. L - Three (3) full size (one (1) of which is to be colored) OB - One (1) reduced copy (82"xll% or 13") Staff Approval B. E� - Three (3) full size III. Information Sheet and/or Plan Block IV. Architectural Elevations (all sides of the building(s) on which signs are proposed) A. Design Review Board and Commission Review/ Approval A. - Three (3) full size (one (1) of which is to be color keyed) - One (1) reduced copy (8z"xll" or 13") Staff Approval B. - Three (3) full size (or photo as required) V. Sign Program (elevation(s) and details, if applicable) - Three (3) copies to scale SIGN APPLICATION CHECKLLST Page Two VI. Color and Material Exhibits - Color and Materials written description (one (1) copy) - Color and Materials sample board (max. 8"x13", 3/8" thick) VII. Filing Fee Sign Program - $15.00 ORB - $10.00 Staff; or - NO FEE for signs valued less than $100.00 Initial Sign Exhibits Received and Checked by: Ping. Div. Staff Date SIGN REVIEW PROCESS Required Submittal Detail NOTE: Applications will not be processed until the appli- cation and all required materials are found to be complete. INITIAL PLAN REVIEW I. APPLICATION FORM: One (1) copy signatures. II. DETAILED PLOT PLAN: Fill out completely and secure all A. Items to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission require the plot plan submittal described below. 1. Three (3) full size plans completely dimensioned and at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 40 feet, showing the follow- ing data: - Scale - North arrow - Property lines - Lot dimensions - Public rights -of -way with existing and proposed dimensions (include street names) - Existing or proposed curb lines - Any and all easements - Adjacent property uses (showing approximate location of structures and other pertinent features) - Setback areas - All existing and proposed structures - Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation patterns (if applicable) - Off-street parking 2. One (1) copy of the plot plan containing all of the general information described above, except that it is to be drafted or photographically reduced to an Eh"xll" or 13" size sheet. (All lettering to be legible; include graphic scale). B. Items to be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff only require three (3) full size copies of the plot plan described above. (i.e. signs valued under $1,000.) III. INFORMATION SHEET AND/OR PLAN BLOCK: As appropriate, include an attached sheet to the app ication and/or specify directly on the plans, in an information block, the following data: - Owner's name, address, and phone number - Designer's name, address, and phone number SIGN REVIEW PROCESS IV. u INFORMATION SHEET AND/OR PLAN BLOCK: (Continued) Page Two - Any special information or conditions pertaining to the site - Any specific information of special conditions particularly relevant to the sign request TIONS (All sides of all buildings which contain A. Items to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission require the architectural elevation submittal described below. 1. Three (3) full size drawings (one (1) of which is to be color keyed --see "Color and Material Exhibits," Item No. VIII). Detailed drawings must include: - Scaled drawings of all sides of all buildings, with dimen- sions indicating height with proposed sign locations and distance between signs dimensioned - Complete street elevations including all buildings 2. One (1) of the architectural elevations containing all of the general information described above, except that it is to be drafted or photographically reduced to an 8;"x1l" or 13" size sheet (all lettering is to be legible; include graphic scale). B. Items to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division Staff only require three (3) full size copies of the architectural elevations described above. Staff may determine that a photograph of an existing building will be accepted as a substitute. SIGN PROGRAM: Three (3) copies of drawings to scale representing all proposed signs, containing the following information: - Scale used - Sign shape - Dimensions and sign area - All graphics and lettering to appear on the sign - Style of lettering to be used and width of strokes - Proposed method of illumination (if appropriate) - Brigtness of illuminated signs, expressed in the number of foot candles at ten feet (should be calculated by person building the sign) - Method of attachment to any structure, or support if placed on ground - Proposed colors and materials (see Item No. VI) - Proposed location (see Item No. II) - Illustration of sign integration in architectural design (see No. IV) the Item - Demonstrate compatability of sign with other existing and proposed signs. SIGN REVIEW PROCESS Page Three VI. COLORS AND MATERIAL EXHIBITS: Exhibits are to be submitted for architectural elevations with signs, as follows: - Detailed written description (1 copy) in addition to actual color and material samples of all exterior (and sign) colors and materi- als to be used. An example of this would be as follows: Building Walls Roof Trim Material: Sand Finish Mission Barrel Ruff Sawn Redwood Stucco Tile Color: Ameritone No. 112, Candle Red (Clay Olympic Stain Glow Tone) Dark Oak Wall Signs Materials: Sandblasted/Routed Redwood Color: Background - oak stain, Letters - white or Materials: Metal sign cabinet, plexiglass face Color: Background - ivory, Letters and Frame - dark brown - One (1) file copy color and material sample board (maximum size 8x13 inches by 3/8 inches thick containing precise color swatches and photographs (which may be clipped from suppliers' brochures) of materials which are too large to attach. - One (1) copy of the architectural and sign elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the written description. You may list the colors and materials in a corner of the elevation drawing or on a separate sheet. Renderings are not required unless specifically requested by the reviewing body. (See Item No. V). VII. APPLICATION FILING FEE: Provide a check payable to the City of Palm Desert in the specified amount. Sian Program - Less than $100 in value, $0 Staff Review, $10.00 Design Review Board and Planning Commission review, $15.00 NOTE: All plans (except colored exhibits) are to be folded to a maximum size of 81-2"x13", prior to submitting with an application. . � 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS' GUIDE TO PROCEDURES FILING PROCEDURE: Prior to submittal the applicant shall discuss his proposal with the Planning Staff to determine whether or not the pro- posal is in conformance with the General Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other requirements. II. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Meetings: 1) City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane. 2) Planning Commission meetings are held on Tuesday, nine (9) days prior to the first Council meeting of the month, also at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers and Wednesday, eight (8) days prior to the second Council meeting of the month, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 3) The Design Review Board convenes on Tuesday, a week before the Planning Commission, at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. B. Appeals: Where the Zoning Ordinance provides for appeal to the City Council or Planning Commission, the appeal shall be made withi.ng fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision by filing an applica- tion of appeal with the Director of Environmental Services. C. Fees: All required fees are listed in the Fee Schedule, as approved by the City Council, and specifically noted for this application. D. Building Permits: Building permits are issued by the Department of Building and Safety and are required before any new construction, reconstruction is commenced. Business License: Prior to engaging in an enterprise for profit, zoning and building code clearance for the proposed use is required and a city business license obtained. Application should be made to the Code Enforcement Supervisor. Private Deed Restrictions: Many parcels of land in the City of Palm Desert are subject to private covenants, conditions, and deed restrictions which may conflict with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is responsible for resolving con- flicts with deed restriction requirements. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (7I4) 346-06II REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION CASE NO:518. SA APPLICANT: DAN WAYNE LEE (TAI PING), (76,989 Iroquois Drive, Indian Wells, Calif. 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Business identification signs`. LOCAIION: 45-299 Lupine Lane. ZONE: C-1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the — Staff and fy the applicant, the Design Review Board approved this project, subject to revisions. Date of' Action: December 9, 1980 Vote: 6-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: See attached minutes. Obtain Planning and Building approval prior to installation of signs. a MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECEMBER 9, 1980 Page Two 5. The lighting system shall be so designed to produce a minimum maintained average light level of one footcandle on the entire parking facility's horizontal surface. The lowest footcandle value at any point on the pavement shall not be less than one-fourth of the average illumination level. The illumination levels at exits, entrances, and collector lanes shall be not less than twice the average illumination of the adjacent parking area or the adjoining street, whichever is greater. Lighting Engineer to verify compliance with said condition. 6. Site plan to be modified as indicated on plans on file in Department of Environmental Services. Carried 6-0 (Barton, Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) Case No. 220 MF - TAMARISK SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT CO. AND S. KASSOVIC, AIA - pprova of preliminary plans for two detached residences on one lot located on the north side of Alessandro Drive, approximately 140 feet east of Cabrillo Avenue; Diane Stadleman was present. The Board reviewed the submitted plans and indicated to the applicant that architectural treatment of the structures should be utilized on all sides. The alternative site and elevation plans were reviewed and it was noted that the alternate parking layout was desirable, with the backup area just north of the garage enlarged. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Barton, the Board moved to continue this item with the architecture restudied. Carried 5-0 (Barton, Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) Case No. 100 C - BARCLAYS BANK AND C.G. DUNHAM - Request for approval of alternate banF drive-thru located at the southwest corner of E1 Paseo and San Luis Rey Avenue; Mike Hornick and Dave Hutchinson were present. The applicant made a presentation indicating the reasons for the change which was made, were: 1) to provide easy eye contact with the teller; 2) to ease access to the drive thru. The Board felt access as built was poor but the problem is primarily the responsibility of the bank. However, they also noted the City has a responsibility to balance aesthetics with function and safety. The Board felt it may not be fair to now require a major change to the drive thru. The Board felt the change from an aesthetic standpoint was acceptable. The Board also indicated that the possibility of restricting left turns from the drive thru should be studied by the City traffic committee. On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Cook, the Board approved the drive thru as built (from architectural standpoint). Carried 5-0-1 (Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin with Barton abstaining) Case No. 518 SA (Ref. 134 C) - DAN WAYNE LEE (TAI PING RESTAURANT) - Approval of business identification signs for restaurant at 45-299 Lupine Lane; Dan Lee was present. The Board reviewed the location of the freestanding sign. The Board felt landscaping should be used to frame the sign and the back of the sign should be painted. The applicant indicated the sign would be supported by two 6" x 6" posts. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Holden, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: 1. Landscaping be used to frame sign. Carried 6-0 (Barton, Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALtd DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-061I :REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION CASE NO: 547 SA APPLICANT: Dan Wayne Lee NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: One freestanding sign and one wall mounted identification sign. LOCATION: 45-299 Lupine Lane at E1 Paseo. ZONE: C-1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the — Staff and fy the applicant, the Design Review Board continued this project. Date of Action: Vote: November 25 1980 5-0 STAFF COMMENTS: See attached minutes. MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1980 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ***************************************** I. The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. after a 2-hour study session. MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Cook Rick Holden Phyllis Jackson Eric Johnson Charles Martin MEMBERS ABSENT: Vern Barton Bernie Leung STAFF PRESENT: Ray Diaz Stan Sawa On a motion by Holden, seconded by Johnson, the Board approved the Minutes of November 10, 1980, with the addition of the vote to Case No. 100 C on page 2. Carried 4-0-1 (Cook, Holden, Johnson, Martin, with Jackson abstaining) II. Minute Motion approving cases found acceptable at the study session - NONE III. CASES Case No. 497 SA - CROCKER BANK - Approval of canvas awning over front entry anamendment tto sign program at 73-833 Highway 111; Steve Shear was present. It was noted that the awning had already been put up prior to receiving City approval. The Board stated the potted trees shown in the submitted rendering should be provided as a condition of approval. Additionally, the awning should be maintained or repaired to keep it in an attractive condition. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Holden, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Six 3 to 4 foot high potted trees shall be provided around the entry. 2. Awning to be maintained. Case No. 545 SA - JET SPA AND JET COPY - Approval of identification signs for two businesses in commercial building at 73-430 Highway 111; Tom and Marty Wolper were present. Staff reviewed the Board's study session comments noting a reduction in sign size. The applicants noted a desire to keep the signs as submitted. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Cook, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height of letters to be 14" with length reduced proportionately. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) Case No. 547 SA - DAN WAYNE LEE - Approval of signs for restaurant at 45-299 Lupine Lane; Dan Lee was present. The Board presented a number of concerns including alternate types of signs, colors, sign size and location of freestanding sign. The Board felt the freestanding sign should be restudied or changed to an alternate type to insure compatibility with the existing building. Landscaping should be considered in the location of the sign. On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Cook, the Board continued this request with the applicant to consider the following items: continued ... MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 25, 1980 Page Two ***************************************** Case No. 547 SA (continued) 1. Submit exact color samples of sign (red to match roof with subdued gold). 2. Provide alternate location for freestanding sign. 3. Use landscaping to frame sign. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) Case No. 159 MF - THE LEARNING TREE - Approval of identification sign for preschool at northwest corner of Cabrillo Avenue and Alessandro Drive; Angela and Drusilla Oliver were present. The applicants requested one change to their sign, that being that the letters be painted and not block letters. All other parts of the sign to be as submitted. On a motion by Holden, seconded by Cook, the Board approved this request as amended above. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) Case No. 90 C - JANICE SCHOEN - Approval of final working drawings for commercial complex on the south side of E1 Paseo, west of Sage Lane; no representative was present. The Board reviewed the final drawings and felt they were acceptable with the changes as noted by Staff. Ms. Jackson felt they should consider some parking lot lights. On a motion by Holden, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking spaces to be double striped per Code requirements. 2. Existing overhead utilities must be undergrounded per Section 25.56.110 of the Municipal Code. 3. Public sidewalk to be colored to match existing sidewalk to west. 4. Prior to final occupancy approval, easements for vehicular cross access over the parking area shall be granted to the City. 5. Main business identification signs to be 10 feet apart. 6. Designate landscaping material marked S-11. 7. Provide street tree at easterly end of sidewalk on landscaping plan; as shown on site plan. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) Case No. 139 C - PORTOLA COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Preliminary an final approval of plans for parking lot adjacent to clubhouse on east side of Sutters Mill Road, at Quicksilver Drive; Scott McKee was present. The Board reviewed this request and felt it was acceptable as submitted. On a motion by Jackson, seconded by Cook, the Board approved this request as submitted. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Jackson, Johnson, Martin) continued... AGENDA ITEM NO. III A-3 DATE November 25, 1980 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO.547 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) DAN WAYNE LEE (TAI PING RESTAURANT), (76-989_Ir9quois _ Drive Indian Wells Calif. 92260). NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT One Free Standing Sign and One Wall Mounted Identification Sign. LOCATION 45-299 Lupine Lane at E1 Paseo ZONE C-1 The applicant, Tai-Ping Restaurant, is requesting approval for two 3'6" high x 6' 8" long sandblasted redwood identification signs; raised letters and border to be red, background yellow gold. Sign #1 would be wall mounted (maximum height 10'), on the west elevation facing the parking lot. Sign #2 would be freestanding and be erected at the corner of El Paseo and Lupine Lane, adjacent to a 3'9" wall on the property line. It would be mounted on two 6"x6" posts, 2'6" off the ground, and have a maximum height of 6'. STAFF ANALYSIS: Sign #1 complies with all applicable city requirements. The location of sign #2 is unacceptable. It is within the public right of way, and creates a corner sight obstruction according to Section 25.56.200 of the Zoning Ordinance (prohibits any sight obstruction area 3' in height, within the triangle formed by the street property lines, and a line connecting points on these lines, 25' from their inter- section. Staff suggests four alternative locations/designs. 1. Individual block letters mounted on the wall. 2. The proposed sign mounted behind the 25' corner triangle at a height adequate to clear the wall. 3. The proposed sign wall mounted on the east elevation. This was originally pro- posed by the applicant. He switched to the corner location, when he decided to add additional landscaping obscuring visibility of a wall sign. 4. Modifying the property line wall, to create a flattened area on which the sign could be mounted at a height not greater than the existing height of the wall. The Board should review the submitted plans and staff alternatives, to determine acceptability. Staff feels alternative one would be most desirable. ' � I SYU.R 149r KID RDWO SAm06LAsrr,D s16il`___� LAM. 2X(e 0 WATEIR. PPOOF 6WE SAHO&ASTV-6 f3At K/orQOvMD ALL Woob 'N26ACFO a ,•room 2co M's "w4" a sF AL � I I I PnrP0. TV pArMTrMb. f ! I SYNTHETIC EMAr«6L. Y r2sTs Zou�CTu 'f? "gpi P ��mG T-t6.C.v rtiN �G-E • �N o.w n-noiJ 3-S!Yl f, INSTAL[ �. 3)II �•I T - -1X ,N e�wG•- 1 1� (�jVItpIN(7( , 4o6T y X 1 x AlYb LF r O M DIO /IAtif- SLIP Fl7- OVr-Q- 2xys L.46(3,--(- r-o -z{�� S r ,I —T ;N 5 rA tL Am6CE 5 C 30 G��'F32 % TtC Kr( VEkIFY STONE I)ENFF/1Nf P. PRESSURE TREAreC) �jX� FASTf-r!r"p '� Il��LD;1yb 5�vr%S iCA::FiFds— ND•rE= CpvNPFr2 _ r7[ NEAQ •',Asw- LEUFL `-_S.N I Kt -A.S OF dL IWF a wPlnt LANE d EL PASFO PALPK De ss Err, A. o:ff lFainnm =cD=canDf7, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE August 6, 1980 APPLICANT Dan Wayne Lee 76-989 Iroquois Drive Indian Wells, CA 92260 CASE NO: 134 C The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at is meeting of gust 5, 1980 CONTINUED TO DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. X APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 624 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 29, 1980 Page Three III. CASES (Continued) - ERNEST W. HAHN, INC. (Continued) lot a n expanded plant palate. The Landscape Architect felt that addi- tional re w of landdcaping materials was desirable. The applicant indicated tha the proposed trellises previously indicated in the parking lot have been re ved. They indicated trees would be used for shading purposes. It was noted that landsca ' g around the mall itself would be reviewed as a part of the individual bui ng approvals. The applicants indicated that while the front plaza has been uced in size all of the same amenities as originally indicated would be prov ed. NN On a motion by Johnson, seconded by Coo the Board moved to grant prelimi- nary approval of the revised site plan sub ct to the following: 1. Provide jog in east -west road from E1 Paseo Monterey. 2. Utilize Bomanite or other paving material in n two-way drive at northerly end of Plaza Way, if drive is approved. 3. Landscaping to be significantly upgraded along High 111, if reduction in width is approved. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Johnson, Martin, Jackson). The applicant indicated that they would keep the Board up to date on 111 development plans by submittal of interim final plans. Case No. 134 C DAN WAYNE LEE (TAI PING RESTAURANT) - preliminary and -1Tn-a-r-apprZVr of plans to remodel exterior of restaurant at 45-299 Lupine Lane; Dan Wayne Lee was present. The Board reviewed the submitted plans and felt that the proposed remodeling was acceptable. On a motion by Cook, seconded by Johnson, the Board moved to grant preliminary and final approval as submitted. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Johnson, Martin, Jackson). We No. 216 MF - SOUTHWESTERN ENTERPRISES, INC. - approval of perimeter wall fo Ingle family subdivision on the east side of Highway 74, south of Homes Road; Ron Gregory was present. The Board revs ed the submitted perimeter wall plan for Tract 13008. The Board felt that t would like to see the landscaping plan at the same time that they review the rimeter wall plan. The Board indicated that it may be desirable to provide re 'ef to the wall depending on how the landscape concept is developed. On a motion by Holden, seconded Cook, the Board moved to continue this item indefinitely, with the concurrence'X the applicant. Carried 5-0 (Cook, Holden, Johnson, Marty, Jackson). IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Board reviewed this request which was forwarded to eir body at the discretion of Staff. The applicant presented a sample ofN3,e material to the Board. The Board felt that a remodeling of only one shop wodi< not be archi- tecturally acceptable. Therefore, they suggested to the applicantthat he remodel the fronts of the buildings, utilizing the existing materia . n PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 624 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING, THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION AT THEIR MEETING OF JULY 29, 1980. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of July 29, 1980, approving: Case No. 214 MF - Preliminary plans for 22 unit condominium project at the southwest corner of Hovley Lane and Portola Avenue for KAUFMAN AND BROAD. Case No. 134 C'- Preliminary and Final Plans for exterior remodeling of restaurant at 45-299 Lupine Lane for DAVE WAYNE LEE (TAI PING RESTAURANT). WHEREAS, at this time, upon receiving and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find sufficient facts and reasons to exist to approve the Design Review Board action of July 29, 1980, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases; 2. That it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of July 29, 1980. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of August, 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, RICHARDS, MILLER NOES: NONE ABSENT: KRYDER, MCLACHLAN ABSTAIN: NONE CHARLES MILLER, Chairman ATTEST: MURREL CRUMP, Acting Secretary /lr `y NDA ITEM NO. III, B-3 DATE July 29, 1980 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO. APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) DAN WAYNE LEE (Tai Ping Restaurant) (76-989 Iroquois Dr., Indian Wells, CA 92260) NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT Preliminary and final approval of plans to remodel exterior of restaurant. LOCATION 45-299 Lupine Lane at E1 Paseo ZONE C-1 The applicant intents to remodel the Copa De Oro restaurant and reopen as the Tai Ping Restaurant. The exterior remodeling will consist of removing the existing high roof and framing over the entry facing Lupine Lane and constructing a new canopy over the driveway. This canopy will be an arch canopy utilizing the same exterior metal roof. Other minor reworking of the entry will be implemented. Additionally, a new fenced in area on the south side of the building will be provided, for trash storage. The applicant indicates that all roofing including the new roof will be painted a dark copper color, while exterior walls will remain a tan color. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Board should review the plans and determine whether the new canopy will be compatible with the existing mansard roof. Additionally, it should be noted that the canopy should be maintained a minimum of 5' from the Lupine Lane property line. Should the Board feel these plans are acceptable, Staff will forward your approval along with any revisions to the Planning Commission for confirmation. J.Tsoc u-z- dl Nam icy Gad Ne�,i'd��b'1 ziac�dzLcvcrj p.;vw�i� �N115� i �1oN r i� hcFd �d -ar�N,mc I��u.oN Grv�d Sr.iou�Guv� __. 's'ir► a �'°`r� IL rr,1a vi s.4-4 � � - xo 4,rw , ay Nc1*d� 59M--4� �drn 3w�+� I e iliP6til►��-- 1 � � --`--- 0MN"4 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA TREASURER'S RECEIPT Received of: V,-'O! .a .J�© —�� Date For D Q9 — /3Y<-- I Account No. I Amount II Received : CITY TREASURER ►,�� Total Y � ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD*** DEPARTINIENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 346 a44-L Telephone State REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) C PRCPERTY DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. EXISTING ZONING Property Caner Aumori2ahOn THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER IS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- IZATION FOR THE FIL!NG CF THIS APPLICATION. 'G'ATUR- DATE AGR!EVENT ABSCLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT CF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY OEEO RESTRICTIO>'S. 1 DO BY fAY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY GEED RES- TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. SIGNATURE DATE / Applicant's Signature IS ATURE D E (FOR STAFF USE ONLY1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS I ACCEPTED BY The Design Review Board reviews detailed design permit. DEPARTMENT N OF ENVIRON- MENTAL SERVICES STAFF process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert and construction plans prior to the issuance of a building DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (ADVISORY) PLANNING COMMISSION (APPROVES OR DENIES PROJECT) INTERIOR REMODELS, MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS PROCESSING SCHEDULE: n DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUC- SAFETY ION SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES and similar projects require 2-4 working days before they may be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. MULTI -FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, and other projects that must be reviewed by the D.R.B. and Planning Commission usually require 10-20 days. In order to facilitate processing, the applicant or a designated representative should attend the review hearings to anS�ger questions which may arise regarding the project. STAFF USE ONLY: Date. Received Date of ACTOR Meeting ACTION APPLICANT NOTIFIED Staff DRB P.C. C.C. r Department of Environmental Services Form 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review Of: CASE NO. Type of Project (Applicant) Agreement of compliance to be signed by those applying for review. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and agree, to comply with all the following requirements, and understand that the Depart- ment of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirma- tion has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. Any minor change requires approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Design Review Board. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City, and any other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the development process. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. Landscaping (with irrigation system) shall be installed prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. Curb, gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided along the full frontage of the lot by means of installation prior to final inspection or other provisions as approved by the City Engineer. Construction shall conform to City Standards and all requirements of the City Engineer. All new and existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are adjacent to and provide service to the property being developed shall be installed underground as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the property being developed as required by Municipal Code. Signature (Date Department of Environmental Services Form 1 CASE NO. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CHECKLIST INITIAL PLAN REVIEW NOTE: Planning Division Staff are required to reject applications if any applicable exhibits are not received and checked. I. Completed Application Form (one (1) copy) II. Address labels for project sponsors (two (2) copies, gummed labels & typed list) Not required for a single-family dwelling application, or staff approved signs. III. Detailed Plot Plan A. Design Review Board and Commission Review/Approval A. L-1 - Three (3) full size (one (1) of which is to be colored) - One (1) reduced copy (8z11xll", or 13") B. Staff Approval B. - Three (3) full size IV. Information Sheet and/or P1an.Block V. Site Analysis & Preliminary Drainage and Grading Plan (Three (3) copies, may be com- bined, where appropriate, with plot plan) VI. Architectural Elevations (all sides of the building(s)) A. Design Review Board and Commission Review/ Approval A. 1 —1 - Three (3) full size (one (1) of which is to be color keyed) - One (1) reduced copy (821"xll" or 13") B. Staff Approval B. - Three (3) full size DRB Checklist ** VII. Sign Program (elevation(s) and details, if applicable) - Three (3) copies to scale VIII. Color and Material Exhibits - Color and Materials written description (one (1) copy) - Color and Materials sample board (max. 8"xl3", 3/8" thick) IX. Floor and Roof Plans - Three (3) copies to scale * X. Landscape Plan (3 copies, 1 colored) - Plant List, (1 copy) * XI. Exterior Lighting Plan (3 copies) XII. . Filing Fee Page Two A. Commission Review/Approval ($50.00) A. 0 B. Staff approval, single-family r� dwellings ($15.00) B. u C. Sign Program Only ($15.00 DRB or C. $10.00 Staff) * Items X and XI may be combined. ** Sign Program only - submit items IIIB, VI, VII, VIII, and Sign Fee. Initial Plan Exhibits Received and Checked by: / Ping. Div. Staff Date FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS I. Three (3) copies of drawings to be submitted for plan check. Drawings must reflect all Conditions of Approval. Final Construction Drawings Received by: / Ping. Div. Staff Date r DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PRUCESb juired Submittal Detail NOTE: Applications will not be processed until the application and all required materials are found to be complete. INITIAL PLAN REV I. APPLICATION FORM: One (1) copy. Fill out completely and secure all signatures. Attach a sheet listing parties directly involved in representing the project (such as architect, engineer, etc.) and their addresses and tele- phone numbers. II. LABELS FOR PROJECT (Application) SPONSORS: One (1) set of gummed address labels shall be typed and submitted with the name and address of all persons to whom the Planning Commission action is to be sent (owner, architect, engineer, etc.). NOT required for a single-family residence on an individual lot, or staff approval of signs. III. DETAILED PLOT PLAN: A. Items to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission require the plot plan submittal described below. 1. Three (3) full size plans completely dimensioned and at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 40 feet, showing the following data: - Scale - North arrow - Property lines - Lot dimensions - Public rights -of -way with existing and proposed dimensions (include street names) - Existing or proposed curb lines - Anyand all easements - All utility line locations (gas, electric, cable, water, and sewer) - Adjacent property uses (showing approximate loca- tion of structures and other pertinent features) - Major vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access points to and from site (use arrows of different widths to show direction and intensity of use) - Setback areas - All existing and proposed structures - Interior vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circula- tion patterns (if applicable) - Off-street parking (to include spaces, regulatory devices, provisions for accessory vehicle storage where applicable, etc.) - Parking areas for bicycles and carts (if applicable) - Service areas and facilities to include: 1) trash storage areas 2) mail delivery boxes 3) loading areas DRB Process Page Two III. DETAILED PLOT PLAN: (Cont.) A.- 1. (Cont.) - Perimeter fencing and screening - Proposed sign locations (if applicable) - Project phasing, showing the stages of construc- tion for the entire development - One (1) copy of the plot plan multi -colored in- dicating open space/landscaping, buildings, park- ing, and driveways. Where more than one height of building is proposed, show each in a different color. DO NOT MOUNT THIS COPY ON A BOARD. 2. One (1) copy of the plot plan containing all of the general information described above, except that it is to be drafted or photographically reduced to an 82"x1l" or 13" size sheet. (All lettering to be legible; include graphic scale). B. Items to be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff only require three (3) full size copies of the plot plan described above. (i.e. single-family dwelling and signs valued under $1,000.) IV. INFORMATION SHEET AND/OR PLAN BLOCK: As appropriate, include an attached sheet to the application and/or specify directly on the plans, in an information block, the following data: - Owner's name, address, and phone number - Designer's.name, address, and phone number - Any special information or conditions pertaining to the site or to the plans - Acreage and square footage calcualations - Ratio of structures to total land area - Ratio of parking spaces to building square footage - Parking requirements provided - Ratio of landscaping to total land area - Any specific information of special conditions particularly relevant to•the project V. SITE ANALYSIS & PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN: Three (3) copies of a plan indicating the data described below (in- formation may be incorporated into the plot plan where detail is not obscurred or prepared as a separate exhibit): - Vicinity map showing major street names, other reference points and landmarks (no scale) - North arrow - Scale - General drainage pattern of area to include site and adja- cent properties within 100' (use arrows to show drainage flow to and from site). - Existing contour lines including property corners - Proposed locations of structures and drives - Elevations of pads and finished floors - Finished grades - Elevations of existing street centerline - Retaining walls (where applicable) DRB Process Page Three VI. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS (all sides of all buildings): A. Items -to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission require the architectural ele- vation submittal described below. 1. Three (3) full size drawings (one (1) of which is to be color keyed -- see "Color and Material Exhibits', Item No. VIII. Detailed drawings must include: - Scaled drawings of all sides of all buildings, with dimensions indicating proposed height (also show proposed sign locations). - Roof mounted air conditioning equipment or other equipment mounted on either the exterior walls or the roof must be shown if visible in elevation view. - Complete street elevations including all buildings, fencing/walls, landscaping and screening; and, peri- meter treatment on non -street sides. 2,. One (1) copy of the elevation drawing(s) containing all of the general information above, except that it is to be drafted or photographically reduced to an 82""xll" or 13" size sheet. (All lettering to be legible; include graphic scale.) B. Items to be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff only require three (3) full size copies of the building elevations, with other information as requested. VII. SIGN PROGRAM (if applicable): Three (3) copies of drawings to scale representing all proposed signs, containing the fol- lowing information: - Scale used - Sign shape - Dimensions and sign area - All graphics and lettering to appear on the sign - Style of lettering to be used and width of strokes - Proposed method of illumination (if appropriate) - method of attachement to any structure, or support if placed on the ground - Proposed colors and materials (see Item No. VIII) - Proposed location (see Item No. III) - Illustration of sign integration in architectural design (see Item No. VI) VIII. COLORS AND MATERIAL EXHIBITS: Exhibits are to be submitted for architectural elevations, walls, paving materials, signs., etc., as follows: - Detailed written description color and material samples of and materials to be used. An follows: (1 copy) in addition to actual all exterior (and sign) colors example of this would be as r' DRB Process VIII. COLORS AND MATERIAL EXHIBITS: (Cont.) Building Walls Material: Sand Finish Stucco Color: Ameritone No. 112, Candle Glow Wall Signs Roof Mission Barrel Tile Red (Clay Tone) Page Four Trim Ruff Sawn Redwood Olympic Stain Dark Oak Materials: Sandblasted/Routed Redwood Color: Background - oak stain, Letters - white or Materials: Metal sign cabinet, plexiglass face Color: Background - ivory, Letters and Frame - dark brown - One (1) file copy color and material sample board (maximum size 8x13 inches by 3/8 inches thick containing precise color ,swatches and photographs (which may be clipped from suppliers' brochures) of materials which are too large to attach. One (1) copy of the architectural and/or sign elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the written description. You may list the colors and materials in a corner of the elevation draw- ing or on a separate sheet. Renderings are not required unless specifically requested by the reviewing body. (See Item No. VI). IX. FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS: Three (3) copies of plans of all struc- tures (to scale) with dimensions. Floor plans should be labeled with the use of each room. Roof plans should indicate changes in roof heights, and illustrate any mechanical equipment. Roof detail could possibly be incorporated in the plot plan. X. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Three (3) copies of a landscape development plan at a min. scale of 1" = 20 ft. (1" = 40 feet allowable if tree plan is on separate sheet from shrub and ground cover plan), showing the following:' - Location of all trees, shrubs, plants, and ground cover in those areas subject to public view — Botanical name and size of all plant material (labeled) - One (1) copy of plan to have individual trees and major shrub forms color -coded by species so that the distribu- tion may be easily distinguished - Perimeter treatment of property (fences, walls, vegetation screens, etc.) - Street furniture and ornamentation (if applicable) to include: - rock outcroppings - benches - fountains - water scape plan - statues - newspaper stands - Type of irrigation system to be used (in note form only; provide complete irrigation plans with construction drawings) DRB Process Page Five XI, EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN: Three (3) copies at the same scale, or combined with the landscape plan; to show all exterior lighting, its location, and type of fixtures for illumination of areas such as driveways, parking lots, storage areas, land- scape planters, tennis courts, and the building. XII. APPLICATION FILING FEE: Provide a check payable to the City of Palm Desert in the specified amount. A. Applications requiring Design Review Board and Planning Commission review/approval, fifty dollars ($50.00). B. Applications that may receive administrative approval from the Director of Environmental Services (or his appointed Staff), including single-family dwellings, fifteen dollars ($15.00). C. Sign Program Only - Less than $100 in value, $0 - Staff Review, $10.00 - Design Review Board 'and Planning Commission review $15.00 FINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS In the final application for a building permit phase, three (3) copies of construction drawings shall be submitted for items Reviewed/Approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Plans must pre- cisely conform to any Conditions of Approval required by Planning Com- mission action. Construction drawings shall include the exhibits des- cribed in the Initial Review, plus any conditioned revisions or addi- tions, detailed in final form. NOTE: All plans (except colored exhibits) are to be folded to a maximum size of 8-"xl3", prior to submitting with an application. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS' GUIDE TO PROCEDURES I. FILING PROCEDURE: Prior to submittal the applicant shall discuss his pro- posal with the Planning staff to determine whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other requirements. IT. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Meetings: 1) City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursday of each'month, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane. 2) Planning Commission meetings are held on Tuesday, nine (9) days prior to the first Council meeting of the month, also at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and Wednesday, eight .(8) days prior to the second Council meeting of the month, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers. 3) The Design Review Board convenes on Tues- day, a week before the Planning Commission, at 2:30 P11 in the Council Chambers. B. Public Hearing: Public hearings are held when the City considers re- quests for a change of zone, variance, conditional use permit, general plan amendment, etc. Legal notices for these hearings are published in the Palm Desert Post at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Public hearing items before the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency are published in the Desert Sun. C. Appeals: Where the Zoning Ordinance provides for appeal to the City Council or Planning Commission, the appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision by filing an application of appeal with the Director of Environmental Services. D. Fees: All required fees are listed in the Fee Schedule, as 'approved by the City Council, and specifically noted for this application. E. Buildinq Permits: Building permits are issued by the Department of Building and Safety and are required before any new construction, re- construction; plumbing, mechanical work is commenced. F. Business License: Prior .to engaging in an enterprise for profit, zoning and building code clearance for the proposed use is required and a city business license obtained. Application should be made to the Code En- forcement Supervisor. G. Private Deed Restrictions: Many parcels of land in the City of Palm Desert are subject to private covenants, conditions, and deed restrictions which may conflict with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. r "O"ible for resolving conflirt° requirements. i 5'-2n 1 p S O S D a m ° r g m �C m N (r � m m ° z m m N in O Ui :� C o > m °D o r lu �J -owo m IT' msc C. Z— ND� Lf, y� D ass D 9 /n 0m 09 a z N- > D A 03 z r n 0 i I II � i 1 C r, J i D, i � I � 1 I i 1,= til a I li r ,ICI I ry L z° H D i t!�IJ • � I I J rn 1 �, = II 1 1I ord LI �C R m J' r a, 9,-4�, r ,t4n 5i Z,� ti j i �' � 6 io'-a' S'-Z•l I 91 J+! 4 rD1nJ = ,o ro in jz N i P N r' �° �' ` _ '�I'UNi I W Y a D. 61 \ < 0y r v^f ➢m Tj 0 -Nl G o rr� u� Qz 1 a, a� °a az a / piJ ➢ of J '"� 3 (� z p ll C j� N -A �N � '"--.j a F OEl�y� rF�j0ry / m3 0 p v p m W —I ne Ups �I d N� °� n 3 Z r tp a re)r I p � I ink {jvI, 1-1 �r -1 m eP r �c` o I q [ n o n p x r N s i C fn I 1 to ui, .. I,l _ "1�t,i1 i 1rFl- Z A 6"ao N 00 aR vX� afp i Rz a to O H m rJ e.N z O tP -4 m d n- r o r !) _l.),.` I { ,! 4 �i1i �S>J�'� �I �S1f;_J I,) (y.) rU ULI l.'�.) �_` �.J� is '�I 1, t� l;'�4 �._�} U / \ n �� { \ (� n (� 1 lj x x�� D IVfU�\�^\ iU U1 uUUU1 I A MC Z! IP4 o zy v➢. �Q)AN z� x tnv �Z x P 6 m�, n czt �' x A ; r'X tU w N eN y °am Js iD Uz 30 Z o 4�x �� s ci _ o LI ea Q R v j,