Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout173C LYNDALE MANORCity of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 4, 1985 CASE NO: PP 85-8 REQUEST: Approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 2738 square foot commercial building in the C-1 (general commercial) building at the northwest corner of San Carlos and Frontage Road. APPLICANT: LYNDALE MANOR 45-47 4 Gdrden Square Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. A. BACKGROUND: An identical request was processed in 1982 prior to the city establishing its precise plan process. This application from 1982 was allowed to expire. The applicant now wishes to proceed. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The 9194 square foot property is a single corner lot having 100 feet of frontage along San Carlos and 90 feet of frontage on the Frontage Road. The site is presently vacant except for a billboard. C. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: C-1/vacant South: C-1/Jensen's Center East: C-1/commercial West: C-1/vacant D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Core Area Commercial E. PREVIOUS CASES: 173 C - identical project Il. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: The proposal is for a 2738 square foot commercial building to be constructed. SITE PLAN: The building is proposed along the Frontage Road property line with parking located to the rear (ie north). Access to parking is from San Carlos. Exiting from the parking lot is onto an unimproved alley which borders the north property line. Considering the constraints placed on this lot due to its small size, it is felt that this parking layout is acceptable. PARKING: After the 15% deduction allowed for mechanical rooms, stairwells etc, the building will have a net area for parking purposes of 2328 square feet requiring 10 parking spaces. Ten spaces are provided. The proposal complies with all applicable zoning and design standards. The following precise plan findings can be made. 1. The design of the precise plan is consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, will be equal to or exceed the standards of developments in the vicinity and therfore will not depreciate property values. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupant for lawful purposes. PP 85-8 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. III. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt Resolution No. approving PP 85-8 subject to conditions and a negative declaration of environmental impact. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg Q � i l PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2738 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAN CARLOS WAY AND FRONTAGE ROAD. CASE NO: PP 85-8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of June, 1985, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by LYNDALE MANOR for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and precise plan of design to allow construction of a 2738 square foot commercial building within the C-1 (general commercial zone) located at the northwest corner of San Carlos and Frontage Road. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to exist to justify their actions: 1. The design of the precise plan is consistent with Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, will be equal to or exceed the standards of developments in the vicinity and therefore will not depreciate property values. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welf are. 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 this case. 2. Precise Plan 85-8, Exhibit "A" on file in the department of environmental services is hereby approved subject to attached conditions. 3. A negative declaration of environmental impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this _ day of , 1985, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD CRI FES, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 85-8 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 3. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Department of Health Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Coachella Valley Water District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all sides with materials similar to building walls. 6. Trash provisions shall be approved by applicable trash company and city prior to issuance of building permit. 7. In lieu of undergrounding existing utility distribution lines at rear of property as a part of construction, the applicant shall record an agreement guaranteeing that the property will voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which is subsequently established by the city including the property in question. 8. That a 3 foot 6 inch decorative wall or suitable hedge be installed adjacent to the parking lot where it abuts San Carlos. 9. That the applicant obtain the approval of the director of public works to improve the alley adjacent to the property. 10. That the necessary arrangements be made with Edison to move the power pole from the alley and underground the power lines pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.56.110, or receive the necessary waiver from the planning commission relating to undergrounding of utilities. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 3. The alley improvements shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to any permit issuance. 4. Landscaping maintenance on Frontage Road and De Anza shall be provided by the property owner. 5. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the city engineer for checking and approval prior to any permits. 6. Installation of paving in the alley and sidewalk on both De Anza and Palm Desert Drive north. Department of Public Works: Continued 7. Size, number and location of driveways to public works specifications with only I driveway approach to be allowedto serve this property. Fire Marshal: of delivering 3000 GPM itflow from any fire 1. Install a water system capable in addition to domestic supply- The the u hydrant for a 3 hour duration supply shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. Fire flow requirements will depend on built-in fire protection provisions of buildings. rants so hat no point any ing is 2 Install Riverside than 200 feet Countysuper a re hydrantdmeasured t f along approved vehicular travel moretravel ways. a. exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. c. hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the building department and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in PP 85-8 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 6. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval. i f CASE NO. j - E:IVIROVEVTAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets). Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in — geologic substructures? b. oisruptions, displacements, compaction, or— overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief —= features?— d, The destruction, covering., or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — — — e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? — — p. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — —' b. The creation of objectionable odors? — — c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? — — — z. Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a._ Changes in currents,'or the course or ` direction of water movements? — — — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — — — d. Alteration of -the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — — — e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an ' aquifer by cuts or excavations? — — f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? — -- 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, and crops)? — — — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? — — — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — — ' — 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, or insects)? — — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? — — — d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? 3. Yes Maybe 110 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in -the rate of use of any natural resources?— r b. Depletion ofsany non-renewable natural resource? — — — 7. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — - b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? — — '- 8. Risk of Uoset::iDoes the proposal involve a risk of an —explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oil, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — — — 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: i a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? — — — t b. A change in the value of property and impro•iementsrexposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted cornunity risk standards? — — — 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels toethe point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? — — a 11. Land Use. Willathe proposal result in the a teration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? — — 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the:emount of designated open space? — — 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn o4 the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of -the City? — — — b. Change in the population distribution by age, income, religion, racial, or ethnic group, occupational class, household type? — — _ C 4. Yes Maybe 40 14. Emolo ent. Will the proposal result in jobs provided, or a additionaT new long -tern in the number and per cent employed, change unemployed, and underemployed? — — 15. Housin Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, owner -occupied and rental, zoning category, etc.) relative to demand or to number of City? — families in various income classes in the — — b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? — — — 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu t in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? _ — — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — — c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? — — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation �. or movement of people and/or goods? — — e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — — 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or resu t in a need for, new or altered in of the following governmental services any areas: a. Fire protection? — — b. Police protection? — '— c. Schools? — — d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — — - e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — f. Other governmental services? — — — i it • 1 . .a Yes Maybe Plo 18, Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? — — — 1g, utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — — b. Communications system? — — — c. Water? — — d. Sewer or septic tanks? — e. Storm water drainage? — — f. Solid waste and disposal? — — — 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? — — — b. A change in the level of community health care provided? — — 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? — — 22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? — — — b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — — — c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? -- -- - 23. Licht and Glare. +lilt the proposal produce ne;.y ligFt or glare? — -- — 24. Archeoioaical/Historical. Will the proposal result in an aiteT'on of a significant archeological or historical site, structire, object, or building? — — — 25 o. Yes Maybe No Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? — — b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? i Initial Study Prepared BY: _ INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. PP 85-8 Environmental Evaluation Checklist, Comments, and Possible Mitigation Measures (Categories pertain to attached checklist) 1. EARTH - Conditions and Impacts B. The development of the property will result in compaction and overcovering of the existing soil which consists primarily of decomposed granite. C. The site will be graded and the surface relief features changed by paving, planting and construction of buildings. Mitigation Measures: B & C Development of property shall conform with city regulation and ordinances pertaining to grading and drainage. 3. WATER - Conditions and Impacts B. Because of grading and development anticipated, it can be expected that there will be changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. Mitigation Measures: B. Same a 1-B do C above 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: A,B,C&D It can be expected that the proposed project will generate additional traffic and demand for parking. Mitigation Measures: Street improvements as required by the City of Palm Desert will mitigate any potential adverse transportation impacts. 23. LIGHT dt GLARE: There may be parking lot lighting provided throughout the site. Mitigation Measures: Any parking lot lighting system shall be designed to comply with municipal code requirements with light standards to be maximum 20 feet high. Lights to be down -shining box type light and provided with shields facing residential properties. Plans, specifications, computer lighting print-out to be approved by city during architectural review process. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code) Case No: PP 85-8 Applicant/Project Sponsor: LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Project Description/Location: 2738 square foot commercial building at the northwest corner of San Carlos and Frontage Road. The Director of the Department of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effect, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE Director of Environmental Services INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Director of Environmental Services FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: pp 85-8 L. Manor Commercial Building DATE: May 3, 1985 The following should be considered conditions of approval: 1. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by City ordinance, shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the Department of Public Works. 3. The alley improvements shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to any permit issuance. 4. Landscaping maintenance on Frontage Road and De Anza shall be provided by the property owner. 5. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the City Engineer for checking and approval prior to any permits. 6. Installation of paving in the alley and sidewalk on both De Anza and Palm Desert Drive north. 7. Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications with only 1 driveway approach to be allowed to serve this property. Barr cclellan, ARC: BM/ Io _ C1'7L'y fY ar - RIVERSIG R1VERSIDEt't LIN'Ti FIRE 1 \11,NT ( RAYMOND HEBRARD a� F IIi I: 11III:1� 2I0 WEST SAN JACIXTCI A�'tN May 6, 1985 PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHOrE:1714) 657.3183 Ramon Diaz City of Palm Desert T 73510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTME 2ASTERN DIVISION HEADQUARTERS 44-400 EL PASEO DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Reference: P.P. 85-8 Applicant: L. Manor Dear Mr. Diaz, '-I/Y : F ?ALL, UE',_RT The following fire protection requirements are in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and Life Safety Code standards. fire 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM fire flow hydrant for a 3 hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the suppl main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. Fire flow regl ments will depend on built-in fire protection provisions of buildings. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building i! more than 200 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel a. exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellol and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. c. hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the origina and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. upor approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department and the original wil be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approl by the water company with the following certification: "I certify that the des' of the water system in P.P. 85-8 is in accordance with the requiremen prescribed by the Fire Marshal." 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 6. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant su specific plans for consideration and approval. Very truly yours, RAYMOND HEBRARD Fire Chief By, MIKE MCCONNE LL Fire Marshal dom NATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PLSL,C AGENCY ��STRICt COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE 1619) 398,2651 OFFICERS DIRECTORS LOW ELL O.WEEKS. GENERALSER ARONE SUTTON. SECRETARY RAVMONO R. RUMMOE S. PRESIDENT TEWS CpDEKAS KEITN N AINSWORTN. ASSISTANT NE AND $MERRILL.. ATTORNEYS JOHN P. POWELL PAUL W-NICHOLS April 24, 1985 STEVE OBUXTON . File: 0163.11 0721.1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 y L!,Y Gentlemen: Subject: Precise Plan 85-8, Portion of NEB, Section 20, T5S, R6E, S.B.M. This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone A0, depth ne foot rate ps his time. oHowever,oweFexpect the omaps stoabeerevised due T`tocthe rconstruction e in effect at of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project. The District will furnish sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly, V -19_� Lowell 0. Weeks Ge ral Manager -Chief Engineer CS:ra cc: Riverside County Departr..ent of Public Health, Tndio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Palm abejert Water & -54ervices e ibtrict 44.500 PORTOLA AVENUE BOX 161 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 BOARD OF DIRECTORS: ROBERT C. H. LAWMAN, President R. CLAIR McDONOUGH SHARON K. EPPS PHYLLIS GRIGGS. District Secretary April _', 1935 - 7 2 - Phone: (6191346-6338 Ir. Ran -on Ciaz Ci:v of ?a_m Deser= , 73-)10 Fred War---rg 0-- _or- s i Palm DeS2rCCa , - Be: Case `10. 7D 85-3 _ •rr �_--vnca�a ♦ao_ ?31^1 Weser: .'=3 ,vd! Derr Mr. Diaz: in raS^on, se =? -- -`='_'- _-..�Ol G"=: :3: pro;eC=. we --e 3. T_:'e a3_er follows 3. One 1-inCC---==-- at $650/ea-- b. Frontage :ea .sc- _ J ne pa Ail .,.e=== an' _ r__'_a_i;, - - before inStalia--4 on -,ork -Q_1_ At ie3SC OC? .'i3 Ce no C'_Ce should 7e 2r_OL_'S=2LLation. -:5:5 Mr. Ramon Diaz April 24, 1985 Page Two 7, A fire sprinkler service connection, if fire sprinklers are required by the City Fire Marshall, would be completed at additional charges and conditions to be determined upon request and according to the District's standards. if you have any questions in regard to the above, please contact US. Very truly yours, Robert C. H. Lawman, President I � - ALIFORNIA 92"60 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM OESER I, C TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 �o Cam► �Se.Jr� W PC t 'Cv1 C t-S A�sT�ic REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AIND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOW: �P PROJECT: t=t7rLfl+iCJr�L'/riCGc t ���/ rlC� APPLICANT: Enclosed please firs materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment (including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. ,,49irf"J �RfE Your comments and recom ended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 8!30 qq.m. Lvl —t 02,.C, in order to be discussed by the land division Committee. The land division committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after :he receipt deacline .Will not be discussed by the land division committee. i;ncerel.. RAW`. -.. J1A_ ^IcECTOR ^F 0%NME':1',\L SERVICES RD/lr Attachments 01 C a cc 0 C T r I M 1, — — ••••^.— G:b:a�j off lFa�Iln. =)cgom5cmriofh, POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ACTION CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT: MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT: Final approval of plans for a retail commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1, S.P. Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the architectural committee approved this project, subject to conditions listed in the minutes. Date of Action: June 14, 1983 Vote: 3-0-1 with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. (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. MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY JUNE 14, 1983 2:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER I. The meeting was called to order at 2:05 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Ron Gregory Rick Holden Bernie Leung Charles Martin Ramon A. Diaz Steve Smith Patricia Armitage On a motion by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, the minutes of the May 24, 1983, meeting were approved as written. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. I1. CASES APPROVED BY MINUTE MOTION: By a minute motion moved by Commissioner Leung, seconded by Commissioner Holden, the following cases were approved and the motion carried 3-0-1 with Mr. Gregory abstaining: A. Final Plans: 1. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a retail commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Approved subject to amended Condition No. 1 and added Condition No. 2: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant submit for review and obtain approval from the director of public works of a detailed street plan prepared by an engineer for the alley located adjacent to the north property line. With the following added to Condition No. 1: Sidewalks to be provided on San Carlos. 2. The landscaping shall be revised as noted on the plans. -1- ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES Lb JUNE 14, 1983 C 01 r„t, jo CASES APPROVED BY MINUTE MOTION (CONTINUED): 2. CASE NO: 147 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JACK WISE, 45-675 Williams Road, Indian Wells, CA 92262 and WALLING -MC CALLUM, 45-260 Club Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92262. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Amendment to an approved plan for an addition to a racquetball facility. LOCATION: Northeast corner of San Carlos and Alessandro Drive. ZONE: R-3 (4) Approved as presented. 3. CASE NO: 180 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DON A. WEXLER ASSOCIATES, 199 S. Civic Drive, Suite 10, Palm Springs, CA 92262 and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, P.O. Box 3249 Terminal Annex, Mail Location 422, Los Angeles, CA 90051. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final plan approval of Southern California Gas Company District Base. LOCATION: Cook Street Business Park. ZONE: S.I. (Service Industrial) Approved as presented. 4. CASE NO: 182 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): E.G.S. METRO and C.G. DUNHAM COMPANY, 73-241 Highway 111, Suite IA, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of Landscape Plan. LOCATION: West side of Larkspur Lane, between El Paseo and Palm Desert Drive. ZONE: C-1, S.P. Project Coordinator Sandy Baum was present to represent this case which was approved as submitted. B. Preliminary Plan: 1. CASE NO: 183 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT SENIORS' ASSOCIATION, INC., 73-241 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 and JOHN OUTCAULT, ARCHITECT, 74-133 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for the first phase of the senior center. -2- ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES 4 iu L J�e CJ i0 JUNE 14, 1983 CASES APPROVED BY MINUTE MOTION (CONTINUED): CASE NO. 183 C: LOCATION: Northwest corner of Catalina and San Pascual. ZONE: R-1, 10,000 Chairman of the Palm Desert Seniors' Association, Hank Clark and John Outcault, architect for the project were present and the preliminary plans were approved as presented. III. CASES: A. Final Approval: 1. CASE NO: 179 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARLSON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, P.O. Box 819, Anaheim, CA 92805. Amendment to FT11 LOCATION: Highway Ill and Lupine. ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that the . commission at the study session had reviewed the proposed revisions noted on the plan which involve the installation of tile in lieu of the shake treatment on the mansard and the addition of a cupola in the middle of the north elevation which would be used to relocate the sign from the fascia area below. The commission did not feel the addition of the cupola would tie in with the rest of the buildings in the center and were concerned over the color of the tile shown on the new plan. Commissioner Gregory noted that the new plans show the deletion of windows on the left elevations. Mr. Dave Carlson, of Carlson Design and Construction Company was present and noted that the tile shown on the plans was the same as that approved by the commission. The reason for the cupola was to improve visibility. He felt the building was too hard to find. The windows were deleted as a requirement of the building department. Acting Chairman Martin felt that his problem was the frontage road situation and not visibility. The commission did not want to set a precedent allowing people to build cupolas for the purpose of displaying their signs. Mr. Diaz advised that the sign ordinance does not permit signs above the eave line which would preclude the signs from being installed on the cupola. Mr. Carlson asked if they could retain the cupola and keep the sign where it presently stands. -3- ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES ; ' j ��fT�i 10 JUNE 14, 1983 If � �l I i«`Jtsl%j CASE NO. 179 C: The commission reiterated that the cupola would not tie in with the rest of the buildings in the center. On a motion by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Leung, the commission denied the cupola and approved the top cap on the roof, with the color of that top cap being the same as the beam fascia (dark brown). Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2. CASE NO: 184 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JERRY DENNINGTON, (A-1 Surveying and Engineering), 73-400 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a commercial office building. LOCATION: 73-400 Highway 111, north side of Highway 111, west of Las Palmas. ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report indicating that the applicant had received preliminary approval of plans for the commercial building in April of 1981. The new building which is still two stories in height has been toned down somewhat from the one approved in 1981. The building is connected at the second floor level and separated on the first floor to allow for an ingress from Palm Desert Drive to the parking area at the rear. On a motion by Commissioner, Holden, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, the preliminary plans were approved as presented. Motion carried 2-0-2, with Commissioner Leung and Commissioner Martin abstaining. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: I. Walls Located in Front Yards: Mr. Diaz indicated that problems have arisen regarding six foot walls along the front setbacks in the R-1 zone. Unless the commission would like to examine them individually, staff will be requiring a minimum five foot setback from the property line when there is a solid wall along the front, so that there can be landscaping in front of it. Where they are adjacent to driveways, staff will require a ten to fifteen foot long base and height triangle be developed to provide visibility when exiting. Commissioner Holden asked if the condition would still apply if there is an existing parkway out in the middle of the property line. Mr. Diaz replied that it would. Acting Chairman Martin felt that setting back the wall from the driveway for safety purposes was acceptable but in terms of coming into the front yard, he didn't have any problem with it being on the property line. If staff told them it would have to be five feet from the property line and they appealed, he would have to support the property owner. -4- ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1983 V. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M. -5- HT TO R�� u IMEMSVj STEVE SMITH, —Associate Planner 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: December 22, 1982 LYNDALE MANOR c/o Millard Archuleta/Robert Ricciardi Assoc. 42-600 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: Case No. 173 C The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting nf December 21, 1982. APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION FOR THIS CASE 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. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/Icr CC: File i A MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 1982 the question. Chairman Wood asked staff if the arcade would be under the same management as the ice skating rink. Mr. Joy felt it would be appropriate for the applicant to answer the question. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. JAY TARANTON, 3666 Kearny Villa Rd., San Diego, stated that the arcade would be located in the entertainment section of the mall next to the ice skating rink. Access to the mall from the arcade would be through the ice skating rink. The arcade would be under its own management; security would be provided at all times during operation. Hours of operation are proposed to be till 10:00 p.m. during the week and 12:00 midnight on weekends. Mr. Taranton did not object to any conditions imposed relating to hours of operation. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 833, approving CUP 14-82, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 4-0. Be Case No.. CUP 15-82 - FRANCES AND BEN GARZA, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a three station beauty salon in an 840 square foot suite in the C-1 zone located at the northeast corner of San Pablo Avenue and El Paseo. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and stated that although a parking space deficiency would exist, staff felt that most customers would also patronize other retail shops. Staff suggested it, might be appropriate to study parking standards for beauty salons. Mr. Joy noted that a letter in favor of this request was received by the owner of the San Pablo Village. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 834, approving CUP 15-82, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Preliminary plan approvals by the design review board at its meeting of December 1. 1982, requiring planning commission confirmation. f A Case No. 173 C - LYNDALE MANOR - Preliminary approval of plans for a / 2726 sq.ft. commercial building at the northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. B. Case No. 178 C - DESERT EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH - Preliminary -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 1982 approval of plans for Phase I of a church located on the south side of Hovley Drive between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue. C. Case No. 176 C - PALM DESERT BOARD OF REALTORS - Preliminary approval of plans for an office building located on the west side of Monterey Avenue opposite the west end of Guadalupe Avenue. Because of a possible conflict of interest, Chairman Wood excused himself from consideration of these items. Mr. Smith reviewed the design review board items and recommended approval. Commissioner Kryder commented on the columns of the Board of Realtors building, and felt they were too masive. After reviewing a colored rendering commission felt the design was acceptable. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the design review board items as presented. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairman Wood abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - Request for adoption of a resolution finding the Redevelopment Project conforming to the General Plan and transmitting its report and recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Sawa reviewed discussions on this matter at the previous meeting and stated that answers to the questions commission had were addressed in the report. He read the questions and answers and gave staff's recommendation which would be included in the draft resolution.. Mr. Ortega briefly addressed the commission on the redevelopment agency's proceedings and staff's recommendation. MR. DAVID SCHEY, Community Development Director for Indian Wells, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Commissioner Kryder noted that the draft resolution was incomplete. Mr. Sawa reviewed the amendments and/or additions which were included in the following motion. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 835, as amended, finding that the proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan; recommending that the commission advises the Palm Desert City Council and Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency that based on the recommendation of legal counsel it should seriously consider postponing adoption of an ordinance accomplishing this amendment until the legal challenges to the Indian Wells Redevelopment Agency have been satisfactorily settled and dismissed; and, transmiting to the city council and redevelopment agency the responses to concerns raised in the memorandum of December 14, 1982. Carried unanimously 4-0. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XI. COMMENTS Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to instruct staff to notify CVAG and request agendas and/or minutes of their Executive Committee meetings be sent to each commissioner. Carried unanimously. Commissioner Crites also instructed staff to notify CVAG and inform them that Commissioner Crites is on the Environmental Committee meeting but has not been notified of any meetings. Commissioner Downs asked for the status on the study for minimum size of dwelling units. Staff would relate this to Mr. Diaz. -3- AGENDA ITEM NO: III-A-1 DATE: June 14, 1983 ARCHITECTURAL CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a retail commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. BACKGROUND: Preliminary approval was given for the proposed development on December 14, 1982, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That the applicant obtain the approval of the director of public works to improve the alley adjacent to the property. 4. That the power pole located in the alley to the north of the property be relocated. The applicant received approval of the planning commission to be included in any future undergrounding district in lieu of the required undergrounding now. At that time it was noted that the pole would have to be relocated if it is in the alley area which is to be paved. The final plans are in substantial compliance with the plans as submitted for preliminary approval. The power pole is still shown located in the alley. The director of public works has reviewed the plans as they relate to the power pole and has indicated that a detailed street plan prepared by an engineer will be necessary and the matter of relocation of the power pole will be addressed at that time. RECOMMENDATION: That the commission review the final plans for Case No. 173 C to determine acceptability. Should the commission decide to grant final approval it should be subject to the following: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant submit for review and obtain approval from the director of public works of a detailed street plan prepared by an engineer for the alley located adjacent to the north property line. /pa DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 CASE NO. 178 C (CONTINUED) 5. Landscape plan approval shall be revised as follows: A. Baccharis 'twin peaks" shall be substituted. B. Malephorea C. Purpurea shall be substituted. C. Mahonia Aquifolium shall be substituted. D. Abelia "Edward Goucher" shall be substituted. E. "Eucalyptus Nudis" shall be corrected on the plans to read "Eucalyptus Rudis". F. The irrigation plan shall be restudied to provide full coverage. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2726 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith indicated that this matter was before the board at its October 26th, 1982, meeting at which time the plans were referred back to the architect in order that they could correct the nonconforming setbacks, improve the north and south elevations and provide additional landscaping on the north side. The building has been reduced in size a small amount and by doing so they have conformed to the setback requirements. The north and south elevations have been altered to have a wood ' panel inserted on all three elevations. The roof design has been altered slightly with it being extended further to the west. Landscaping has been installed along the north side of the building adjacent to the wall in the manner of three or four planter areas to be planted with Armstrong Junipers. The only remaining concern was that a decorative wall or hedge be located along the San Carlos property line adjacent to the parking area. The board reviewed the plans and felt they were acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Holden, seconded by Mr. Gregory, the preliminary plans were approved subject tc the conditions listed in the staff report with Conditioon No. 3 being deleted and Condition No. 5 being modified to read that the pole will be relocated. Motion carried 3-0-1 with Mr. Cook abstaining. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 and the council had chosen not to implement those densities. Regarding the question of hotel development, Mr. Diaz stated that the committee reviewing the plan had considered permitting hotels with a density equal to regular residential density, or in this case a 60 unit hotel. In response to Mr. Paul and Ms. Broerman, Mr. Diaz commented that the new proposals were not taking away development rights. The public hearing was opened in order to give the audience a chance for rebuttal. Mr. Fox stated that the people in the homestead area have been given an ultimatum and owners on upper hillside have been denied development. The public hearing was closed and a 10 minute recess called at 8:43 p.m. -- The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Chairman Wood asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Richards explained to the public that they are trying to do some honest planning. He disagreed with staff relative to Mr. Fox's property; he felt it was down -zoned as proposed and was inclined to separate this property from the others. He added that staff had done a good and thorough analysis in studying the matter. Commissioner Wood concluded with a statement that the commission had a very difficult job in making a decision and as a result not everyone would be happy with it. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 830, recommending to the City Council to rescind the Palm Valley Area Specific Plan, and adoption of of The West Hills Specific Plan (GPA 03-82) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be approved. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 831, recommending approval of a Change of Zone (C/Z 08-82) from R-E 1-3 d.u./5 acres D,H; PR-1 D,H; PR-2 D,H; PR-3 D,H; and O.S. to H-PR D and O.S. to C-1, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for property between the Palm Valley Channel and the western city limits. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 832, recommending approval to the City Council of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 11-82, creating the H-PR Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.25 and deleting the "H" Hillside Development Overlay District Chapter 25.52 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Crites and Richards abstained). VIII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AJ 173 C - LYNDALE MANOR - Request for approval to record an agreement in lieu of undergrounding existing utility poles in the C-1, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Drive and North Palm Desert Drive. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and explained that the applicant was requesting to be a part of any future undergrounding district in lieu of the required undergrounding now. It was noted that the pole would have to be relocated if it's in the alley area, which is to be paved. Staff recommended approval. MR. PAUL HENRY, representative, was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 request. Carried unanimously 5-0. B. PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT - Request for adoption of a resolution finding the Redevelopment Project conforming to the General Plan and transmitting its report and recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Ortega explained that when this property was transferred to the project area within City of Palm Desert an agreement was made between both cities. The agreement called for a reversion of the property when the City of Indian Wells formed a redevelopment agency. In order to return the area in question an amendment to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan was necessary. Prior to approving such a revision council needed a determination from the commission that such an amendment was consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan. Legal procedures have to be adhered to and therefore the matter was before the planning commission. Commissioner Richards felt that problems would arise in terms of the revenue source and suggested a hold harmless letter be obtained from bond counsel. Commissioner Kryder suggested that action should be taken now with the agreement that a hold harmless letter be obtained. Commissioner Crites felt that maybe this should be continued until a legally constituted redevelopment agency were formed in Indian Wells. Mr. Ortega explained that the bonds repayment would not come from increment enerated from this area. The increment from this area would, however, be used to repay 2.5 million in expenses and costs not covered by the bonds issued for the Palm Valley Channel construction. MR. DAVE SHEY, representative for City of Indian Wells, stated that a legal Redevelopment Agency has been formed since July. He explained the agreements made between the cities when this property was transferred to the project area within the City of Palm Desert. He further noted that $214 million was to be given to the City of Palm Desert towards the Palm Valley Channel whether the property was within the project area of Indian Wells or Palm Desert. Chairman Wood asked Mr. Shey what security did the City of Palm Desert have on the $214 million promised. Mr. Shey indicated that he understood the commission's concerns and why they would want those concerns clarified prior to taking action. He concluded that he would like to see this proceed as quickly as possible. Chairman Wood stated that there were many questions unanswered and felt there should be clarification before taking any action and asked Mr. Diaz to state those concerns which had been raised. Mr. Diaz indicated that implementation of the flood control project was the reason the commission made a determination that the Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan was consistent with the city's general plan; that any amendment to the plan must not impact the implementation of the project. He continued that among the questions raised during the council's study session were: Shouldn't all legal challenges to the Indian Wells agency be cleared before transferring the area? What would be the impact on the increment flow if the territory were transferred and the Indian Wells Redevelopment Agency successfully challenged in the courts? Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to the meeting of December 21, 1982, 2:00 p.m. for further study and clarification. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Kryder and Downs voting NAY). X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE -5- AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-2 DATE: December 14, 1982 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2726 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. BACKGROUND: A development project on the property was reviewed by the board at its October 26, 1982, meeting. At that time, the plans were referred back to the architect to address the following: 1. Recess the building to conform to setback requirements. 2. Improve north and south elevations. 3. Provide additional landscaping on the north side. (Note: For further discussion see minutes of October 26, 1982 meeting attached). DISCUSSION• The applicant is proposing a 2726 square foot retail commercial building at the northwest corner of north Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive. PARKING: Eleven parking spaces are required and ten are proposed. The zoning administrator following a public hearing, granted an adjustment to allow the provision of ten parking spaces. SITE PLAN! The building is proposed along the frontage road property line with parking located to the rear (i.e. north). Access to parking is from San Carlos. Exiting from the parking lot is onto an unimporved alley which borders the north property line. Considering the constraints placed on this lot due to its small size, it is felt that this parking layout is acceptable. LANDSCAPING• A landscape program has been overlayed on the site plan. Groundcover will be hybrid yellow gazania. Trees on the site are limited to shamel ash (15 gallon), shrubs (5 gallon) including natal plum, prostrate juniper, Armstrong juniper, dwarf oleander and shiny Xylosma. The board should review the landscaping and suggest any changes for incorporation into the final plans. Some of the landscaping is delineated in the city owned right-of-way. Installation of landscaping in this location should be aproved by the public works department. It should be noted that landscaping along the north wall has been increased from the last submittal. -1- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM CASE NO. 173 C DECEMBER 14, 1982 ELEVATIONS: The proposed building is one story in height with a red clay tile roof and dark brown wood fascia. The walls are to be tan plaster. The windows are set in light bronze frames with tinted bronze glass. Some changes when compared to the last submittal, include extending the north side facing tile roof further toward the west end of the building, adding areas of wood siding on each of the building faces and adding a section of wood trim at the top of the tile roof. The elevations are acceptable to staff. CONCERNS: A minimum 3 foot 6 inch decorative wall or suitable hedge is required on the east property line to screen the parking lot. Exiting from the site onto the adjacent alley to the north is proposed. The power pole located in the alley will have to be moved and the alley improved to the satisfaction of the director of public works. CONCLUSION: Although some revisions are necessary, the plans as submitted are adquate for the board to grant preliminary approval. The board should review the plans to determine acceptability. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. 173 C be granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. /pa 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That a 3 foot 6 inch decorative wall or suitable hedge be installed adjacent to the parking lot where it abuts San Carlos. 4. That the applicant obtain the approval of the director of public works to improve the alley adjacent to the property. 5. That the necessary arrangements be made with Edison to move the power pole from the alley and underground the power lines pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.56.110, or receive the necessary waiver from the planning commission relating to undergrounding of utilities. -2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 1. CASE NO: 176 C (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Holden, the preliminary plans were referred back to the architect to be restudied in order that he may address the following concerns: 1. That the building and parking locations be reversed. 2. That the building be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3. That the building be reduced in height to 18' to conform to the R-2 zoning provisions. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Ms. Jackson abstaining. 2.; CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MILLARD ARCHULETA ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2780 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the north frontage road and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith summarized the staff report indicating staff's concerns, the first being relative to the setbacks. The building would have to be moved back on the lot or sections of the building would have to be reduced in order to meet the five foot required setbacks adjacent to the streets. If this were done, the building would line up with the existing buildings to the west. Mr. Gregory felt the north elevation was weak and could be improved by landscaping it with some small planters against the wall. It was Ms. Jackson's feeling that a little more ingenuity could be used to enhance the building but felt that if the plans complied she wouldn't ask for any changes. Mr. Leung felt that the building was too big for the site, it needed more undulation to make it more interesting and some tree elements could be added. Chairman Martin felt that the parking requirements for a lot of this size really hurt the building. Mr. Gregory asked if the city and client could compromise. He felt that if the owner were willing to give up a little of the building area and the city could give up a couple of parking spaces, the building could be greatly improved. - 3 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 2. CASE NO: 173 C (CONTINUED) Mr. Diaz replied that the city had already compromised by allowing them to modify the parking requirement by 10 percent through an adjustment procedure. Chairman Martin asked if the owner could apply for a variance. Mr. Diaz replied that they could apply for one but staff would recommend denial because the required findings could not be made. Chairman Martin asked if the city council had ever allowed parking on the streets to be used towards the square footage requirement of the building. Mr. Diaz replied that it had not. Street parking could not be counted particulary in this case because the frontage road could quite possibly go back to a two way traffic system which would eliminate the street parking. Ms. Jackson asked if anyone had considered the possibility of relocating the building to the west side of the lot facing east. Mr. Diaz replied that it had been considered but the owner would have to get a tenant who would not need visibility from Highway 111. On a motion by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Ms. Jackson, the plans were referred back to the architect in order that the following concerns could be addressed: 1. That the building be recessed from the streets in order that it conform to the setback requirements. 2. That the elevations on the north and south sides be improved. 3. That landscaping be added on the north side. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Cook abstaining. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. CASE NO: 174 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: J. P. CONSTRUCTION, INC., 74-831 Velie Way, Suite 1, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program. LOCATION: Cook Street Industrial Park, east of Cook Street on the north side of Mayfair Drive. ZONE: S.I. Mr. Smith indicated that the board had granted final approval to the development and they have since had a sign program submitted which conforms to the code. The sign is approximately a foot high and the length will vary according to the copy. The letters will be 8 inches high and the signs will be located as shown on the final pians. -4- sa AUEr i N. PALM DESERT DRIVE SITE PLAN 1/8' - V-0' TABULATIONS SITE AREA 9194 SO.FT. 100% BUILDING AREA LOCK SHOP 1980 1 RENTAL 840 4780 SOFT. 80% LANDSCAPE AREA _ 1624 SOFT, 17% PARKING REGUIRED 11 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED 10 SPACES _ !III!IIIIIII�IIIIililliilllillllllliitl"IIIINIIIIIIIIIIiilllllllllllllllllllllll� lu��.. „�,��usBJII!!IIIIIIIIIIII!i ,�.. EAST ��I,wII1111114illllllllllllililllfflll Illilllllllllllllllllll Will ................ 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: December 10, 1982 LYNDALE MANOR c/o Millard Archuleta/Robert Ricciardi Assoc. 42-600 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: Case No. 173 C The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of December 7, 1982. Approved Request to Record Agreement in lieu of Undergrounding Utility Poles 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. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRE7°ARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: File City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 7, 1982 CASE NO: 173 C REQUEST: Approval to allow recording of an agreement to voluntarily join any undergrounding district in lieu of undergrounding existing utility poles to allow commercial construction in the C-1, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Drive and North Palm Desert Drive. APPLICANT: LYNDALE MANOR C/o Millard Archuleta/Robert Ricciardi Associates 42-600 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 I. DISCUSSION: The applicants are presently processing a plan for the subject property. One of the requirements will be that the 20 foot wide alley at the rear (north) be paved since it is used for circulation of vehicles for the project. Within the alley is a power pole which by code is required to be undergrounded. The code does allow the planning commission to waive undergrounding provided the applicant agrees in writing to voluntarily be a part of any undergrounding district which is subsequently formed. The applicant's representative is asking to waive the undergrounding at this time due to the disproportionate financial burden in relation to the extent of the project. Additionally, the applicant feels the benefit is minimal since adjacent power poles would remain. If this request is approved, it may still be necessary for the applicant to relocate the pole to the northern edge of the driveway, depending how far it encroaches into the alley. A survey will be necessary to accurately locate the power pole. Staff feels the benefit of undergrounding the property is minimal. It would be more appropriate to underground this pole and adjacent poles as a part of an 'undergrounding district. Therefore, we feel this request is acceptable. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, approve request to record agreement in lieu of undergrounding utility poles. III. ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter of Request B. Site Plan C. Vicinity Map Prepared by Reviewed an /lr ---- —----�Tf-------- _-.___-.—_ - -----M _OS, .c!t.60 V e � i— 0 Oz .re5 1// 3// ",- 7--7-- "/0 / I I F7. OZ L 6/ n B/ fs'O -- // Ad ' y —_ - ---- - -- - s Coro.. 2,1tI IDrj rr O / I 2 r� w w o � I �r °r s OcY NV SS3 / y Y �V -F bS' •n6 O • 6` / Q ' y £ ou /iun 060/11^ DW/dd b o ' lb/3530 W 7b'd • I 7 /c7 ° I ac U 0 O O O O O O T bl S/ 9/ �/ / • � _ _ 1 1 er nus P v v •ter /, " • s Z08/ yb1 r e (1 rn bld cn 60� MILLARD ARCHULETA / ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, AIA November 12, 1982 City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Ray Diaz Director of Environmental Services Dear Mr. Diaz: R� nallTO NOV 15 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY of PALM DESERT I am writing you to discuss the Manor Commercial Building proposed for the corner of San Carlos Drive and North Frontage Road in Palm Desert (Case No. 173C). The project was disapproved by the Design Review Board and is currently being redesigned to comply with the D.R.B. recommendations. There is, however, one point listed in your conditions of approval which I would like to discuss. It is our feeling that the requirement to move the Edison power pole from the alley and underground the power lines would cause a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Manor in relation to the extent of this development. In addition, the benefit from such a move would be minimal since the power lines to each side of the property would remain on poles above ground level. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider imposing this condition on the project. We are looking forward to resolving this question as soon as possible and would appreciate your cooperation in getting it on the agenda for the next Planning Commission or City Council hearing. If you wish to discuss this matter or if you require anything from us, please let me know. Sincerely, MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES PAUL D. HENRY, JR. 7440 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90041 42600 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING (213) 254-9238, 254.9121 TELEPHONE (714) 566-9411 INTERIOR DESIGN �c Lr m a 1 SAN CARLOS DRIVE MILLARD ARCHULETA ASSOCIATES ROHERT H. RICCIARDI A.LA. r.. �0� trr►u-ry FbLS urlLrry UNfs MR 6 MRS LYNDALE MANOR i MILT;ARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, AIA November 12; 1982 D City of Palm Desert. NOV 1 5 19�2 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane ES Palm Desert, GA 92260 Uy�IRONMENTAL DESERT CRY OF PALM 'Attn: Ray Diaz _,. Director. of Environmental -_.Services .. Dear Mr. Dial: I am writing you 'to discuss the Manor, Commercial Buiading proposed for the ..corner of.San Carlos Drive and North Frontage Road in Palm Desert (Case, . No. 17.3C). The' project was di§approved'by the Design. Review Board and is currently'being redesigned-to,comply_with the D.R.-B. recommendations'. There is, howeveri,,one,point listed in.your conditions of approvalwhich ' I would_'like to discuss: It is_our-feelin that'.the re ui,rement to,move' the: Edison power.`pole'from the 6.1.ley,and'.underground. the power l„i'nes would ,cause a disproportionate financial: burden -on W. Manor in.relation,to: the .z extent of this development.- In addition, the benefit -from such a;move. would be minimal since the power, lines:'to:each side of the property. would remain on poles above -ground. level'. 1 ;.. 1Y t I since'rely.hope,that you will reconsider imposing this. -condition on the, =project: We are looking forwar'd;to',resolvng this question'as soon as possible -and would appreciate your .cooperation in getting if on the agenda for the next Plannin Commission.-or-,.Cit Council hearing' If ou wish- 9 Y' 9•�... Y too d-iscuss this matter or if you require anything'from us., please let ; me: know. , -Sincerely, r PdILLARD,ARCHULETA/RDBERT47 -RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES,.+ 7. x " r .. �- PAUL D -HENRY, JR. , r 4 i - , I. • _ ,` q.. , - f I -'may 7440`NORTH FIGUEROA.STREET •' ' .,. LOS ANGELES. CALIFoRNIA 9D041,, - '(213) 254-9238, 254-9121 - -42600 SOS HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 - -TELEPHONE (714) 6689411" ARCHITECTURE,- - .ENGINEERI, NG,-'.- - PLANNING'- . _INTERIOR DESIGN 6 1 � e ]llOi 5= e��Ip d • id I I � N i ! �D B 1 SAN CAMOS DRIVE (mu•fV . Pbte �. _ I I IF� UTIWiY - L�N� m 1 MUMARD ARCRDLETA ABBOCIATEB A CONNERCIAL SUUYNG FOR: ROBERP B. RICCIARDI A.I.A. LYNDALE MANOR Y,. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 1. CASE NO: 176 C (CONTINUED) On a motion by Mr. Cook, seconded by Mr. Holden, the preliminary plans were referred back to the architect to be restudied in order that he may address the following concerns: 1. That the building and parking locations be reversed. 2. That the building be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the west property line. 3. That the building be reduced in height to 18' to conform to the R-2 zoning provisions. 4. That the west and south elevations be restudied. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Ms. Jackson abstaining. 2. CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MILLARD ARCH ULETA ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2780 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the north frontage road and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. Mr. Smith summarized the staff report indicating staff's concerns, the first being relative to the setbacks. The building would have to be moved back on the lot or sections of the building would have to be reduced in order to meet the five foot required setbacks adjacent to the streets. If this were done, the building would line up with the existing buildings to the west. Mr. Gregory felt the north elevation was weak and could be improved by landscaping it with some small planters against the wall. It was Ms. Jackson's feeling that a little more ingenuity could be used to enhance the building but felt that if the plans complied she wouldn't ask for any changes. Mr. Leung felt that the building was too big for the site, it needed more undulation to make it more interesting and some tree elements could be added. Chairman Martin felt that the parking requirements for a lot of this size really hurt the building. Mr. Gregory asked if the city and client could compromise. He felt that if the owner were willing to give up a little of the building area and the city could give up a couple of parking spaces, the building could be greatly improved. - 3 - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1982 2. CASE NO: 173 C (CONTINUED) Mr. Diaz replied that the city had already compromised by allowing them to modify the parking requirement by 10 percent through an adjustment procedure. Chairman Martin asked if the owner could apply for a variance. Mr. Diaz replied that they could apply for one but staff would recommend denial because the required findings could not be made. Chairman Martin asked if the city council had ever allowed parking on the streets to be used towards the square footage requirement of the building. Mr. Diaz replied that it had not. Street parking could not be counted particulary in this case because the frontage road could quite possibly go back to a two way traffic system which would eliminate the street parking. Ms. Jackson asked if anyone had considered the possibility of relocating the building to the west side of the lot facing east. Mr. Diaz replied that it had been considered but the owner would have to get a tenant who would not need visibility from Highway 111. On a motion by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Ms. Jackson, the plans were referred back to the architect in order that the following concerns could be addressed: 1. That the building be recessed from the streets in order that it conform to the setback requirements. 2. That the elevations on the north and south sides be improved. 3. That landscaping be added on the north side. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Cook abstaining. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. CASE NO: 174 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: J. P. CONSTRUCTION, INC., 74-831 Velie Way, Suite 1, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program. LOCATION: Cook Street Industrial Park, east of Cook Street on the north side of Mayfair Drive. ZONE: S.I. Mr. Smith indicated that the board had granted final approval to the development and they have since had a sign program submitted which conforms to the code. The sign is approximately a foot high and the length will vary according to the copy. The letters will be 8 inches high and the signs will be located as shown on the final plans. -4- AGENDA ITEM NO: III-B-2 DATE: October 26, 1982 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO: 173 C APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES, 42-600 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 and LYNDALE MANOR 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert, CA 92260. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of plans for a 2780 square foot commercial building. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the north Frontage Road and San Carlos Drive. ZONE: C-1 S.P. DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing a 2780 square foot retail commercial building at the northwest corner of the north Frontage Road and San Carlos Drive. PARKING: Eleven parking spaces are required and ten are proposed. The zoning administrator following a public hearing, granted an adjustment to allow the provision of ten parking spaces. SITE PLAN: The building is proposed along the Frontage Road property line with parking located to the rear (i.e. north). Access to parking is from San Carlos. Exiting from the parking lot is onto an unimproved alley which borders the north property line. Considering the constraints placed on this lot due to its small size, it if felt that this parking layout is acceptable. The building as proposed does not conform to the required setbacks in the C-1 zone. A minimum 5 foot setback from both property lines adjacent to streets is required. Along the south (Frontage Road) property line, the proposed setback varies from 0 to 4 feet. In order to comply with the ordinance, this portion of the building will have to be moved back to a constant 5 feet. This will also result in the building being in line with the building adjacent to the west. These modifications should be able to be accomplished without major revisions to the overall site plan. LANDSCAPING: A landscape program has been overlayed on the site plan. Groundcover will be hybrid yellow gazania. Trees on the site are limited to shamel ash (15 gallon), shrubs (5 gallon) include natal plum, prostrate juniper, Armstrong juniper, dwarf oleander and shiny' Xylosma. The board should review the landscaping and suggest any changes for incorporation into the final plans. Some of the landscaping is delineated in the city owned right-of-way. Installation of landscaping in this location should be approved by the public works department. ELEVATIONS: The proposed building is one story in height with a red clay tile roof and dark brown wood fascia. The walls are to be tan plaster. The windows are set in light bronze frames with tinted bronze glass. The elevations are acceptable to staff. -1- CASE NO. 173 C OCTOBER 26, 1982 CONCERNS: The major concern of staff relates to the setbacks. The site plan will have to be revised to incorporate the necessary changes. A minimum 3 foot 6 inch decorative wall or suitable hedge is required on the east property line to screen the parking lot. Exiting from the site onto the adjacent alley to the north is proposed. The power pole located in the alley will have to be moved and the alley improved to the satisfaction of the director of public works. CONCLUSION: Although some revisions are necessary, the plans as submitted are adequate for the board to grant preliminary approval. The board should review the plans to determine acceptability. RECOMMENDATION: That Case No. 173 C be granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: /pa 1. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the city fire marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until completed. 2. Final construction drawings, including a final landscaping, grading, lighting, amenities, trash storage, walkway layout, irrigation plans and sign program shall be submitted to the design review board. No final inspection or occupancy permit shall be given by the department of environmental services to this project until the aforementioned approved plans and construction shall have been completed. 3. That the site plan be revised to conform to the setback requirements. 4. That a 3 foot 6 inch decorative wall or suitable hedge be installed adjacent to the parking lot where it abuts San Carlos. 5. That the applicant obtain the approval of the director of public works to improve the alley adjacent to the property. 6. That the necessary arrangements be made with Edison to move the power pole from the alley and underground the power lines pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.56.110. -2- i 20' ALLEY m .., '.mu�3sI1 4.1� fbwaw,II["III1�I� IRPTAL LOC !XW i�„1I�1�i�luul�uiu�lulmlmummiuuu lumuuu N. PALM DESERT DRIVE SITE PLAN 1/8' • 1'-0' TABULATIONS SITE AREA 8184 SO FT 100% BUILDING AREA LOCK SHOP 1Y00 RENTAL 020 1 2780 SOFT. SO% LANDSCAPE AREA 1024 SOFT 17% PARKING REOURED 11 SPACER PARKING PROVIDED 10 SPACES „'1I.511111111111llllifl i 1 P.P.. �...II� n er 1 r. GL 'szrs's-F" CL6U46�'Q .1 UCst�I,1� ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES Applicant ( plaan w.t) 42-600 Bob Hope Drive Mailing Address Telephone Ranc568-9411 ho Mirage, California 92270 City Stole Zi P- Code REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) Design approval of a: 2,780 Sq. Ft. commercial building at the northwest corner of N. Palm Desert Drive and San Carlos Drive for Mr, and Mrs. Lyndale Manor, 45-474 Garden Square, Palm Desert California PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 13 Palm Village Plaza Tract Map Book 23, page 2 of Maps, County of Riverside ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. 627-152-012 EXISTING ZONING C-1, S.P. Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER IS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTiIOR- RATION FOR THE F9.ING OF THIS APPLICATION. AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM 1 00 BY MY SIGNATURE ON Applicants Signature FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL ST! ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION ❑ OTHER E.A. No. GATE All LIACILI II" RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS. 2EEMET, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY GEED RES- / TRICP"S TMAT'IAY BE APPUCASLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. a/ z ATE ACCEPTED BY CASE No. REFERENCE CASE NO. CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review Of: CASE NO. Commercial Buildin ype of Project) MILLARD ARCHULETA/ROBERT RICCIARDI ASSOCIATES LYNDALE MANOR compliance to ng ror 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 require by Municipal Code. te-k- �n�lt Signature Date Department of Environmental Services Form 1