Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout40MF IRONWOOD 130 NEW UNITSO 0 -7-7YM Y7 � �✓zl� S�IYi 'N 'lN ftm M149 -PDltiT ALGYJC IWAL7111e5 4��2tii �X/5Z-� f�4 ZX/rt1L� M, A,4,�7- ( /I Mein -bSc6llzl y ry �zl� �01(1/IQa� aw/ yy 1 Mao 2oM /J41IW17�✓✓A7� 6o/2192 Lop/�i�JGj a�UUTft .><uav�� ��v0��/ �O ��,� �//07f1S✓�' a, � � >�, ;, ,,� W-Opwplrj� . L�KIN ��U 1��✓7 • FG 577;F 47-IWID P,D//UT v�` /UD27t} 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 Silver Spur Associates__ 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Larry Spicer Re: Tract 5796, Case No. 40MF Dear Mr. Spicer: In my letter of July 6th, I indicated to you that certain approved street improvements were not installed in part of this subdivision. I have subsequently reviewed the matter with your superintendant of construction, Mr. Edwards, the City's Director of Public Works, Mr. Clyde Beebe, and I have further reviewed all previous pprovals by the former City Engineer, Mr. Cook. After said review it is clearly evident that a representative of the City had previously deleted the requirement for special improvements within the streets of this subdivision. Therefore, I will no longer pursue this requirement. I apologize for pursuing the requirement which was previously deleted by City personnel. Very truly yours, QC-\��`�.� �a r Paul A. Williams, A.I.P. Dept. of Environmental Services paw/tb oif IFIMa=1 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 6, 1978 Silver Spur Associates 49-200 Mariposa Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Larry Spicer Re: Tract 5796, Case No. 40MF Dear Mr. Spicer: After physically reviewing said area of the subject tract, we find that construction of the street entries and cul-de-sacs are not finished as indicated on said map, specifically, stamped finished. We would appreciate your correction and rework per your submitted and approved tract map. If there are any further questions regarding this subject, please contact the Staff of the Department of Environmental Services. Very truly yours, Paul A. Williams, A.I.P. Director of Environmental Services lm/pw/ks �/omF MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 18, 1977 7 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Cham- bers of the Palm Desert City Hall. II. PLEDGE - Commissioner BERKEY III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Commissioner READING Chairman WILSON Others Present: Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner IV. MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Meeting of January 4, 1977. The following corrections were noted: Page 2, 12th paragraph, reword as follows: "Commissioner Kelly stated that in relation to the parking deficiency, the future redesign of the main parking lot area would mitigate the deficiency. She further felt that there was a unique situation involved and that she would be in favor of granting the Variance and approving the Conditional Use Permit." Page 3, 4th paragraph, under Oral Communications, add the following: "CLIFF HENDERSON, 73-597 Pinyon, spoke to the Commission and presented a rendering prepared by a professional planning group which he stated was his concept of how Highway Ill should ul- timately look. He further asked that the Planning Commission consider this in their dealings with the redevelopment of the city. He felt that Highway 111 has the potential of becoming a 'Wilshire Boulevard' in the desert. Mr. Williams responded to Mr. Henderson stating that this rendering would be presented to the Redevelopment Planning Priorities Committee for their consideration at their next meting. Page 6 of the transcript, change the spelling of "Schneider" to read "Snyder" and also change "Prey" to "Pray". A motion of Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 4, 1977, as corrected, was unanimously carried. January 18, 1977 Page One a V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Wilson directed that letters received by the Commissioners from Mr. Clifford Henderson be turned over to the Secretary for pre- sentation at the next meeting of the Redevelopment Planning Priorities Committee. Chairman Wilson then asked staff if Mr. Henderson's rendering had been presented to the Planning Priorities Committee. Mr. Fleshman answered that the rendering had not been presented as yet but that it would be presented at the next meeting of the Planning Priorities Committee which is scheduled for January 26, 1977. At this time, Mr. Fleshman stated that in order to leave the rest of the evening free to discuss the C.O.D. Specific Plan, he was requesting that the Design Review Board items and the New Business items be presented now. The Commission concurred with Mr. Fleshman. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of City Council Referral of a Proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. Fleshman explained that the City has received two requests for amendments to the adopted Redevelopment Plan. Further, the said amendments have been referred to the Planning Commission as a single Redevelopment Plan Amendment by Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 47 for evaluation as to the effects of the request on the City's General Plan. Mr. Fleshman then explained that it would be necessary for the Commission to determine the fol- lowing: 1. A portion of the requested amendment does not conform to the City's adopted General Plan. 2. An amendment of the City's General Plan must be considered before the Redevelopment Plan Amendment may be considered. 3. Initiate a General Plan Amendment No. 01-77, to consider a change of land use designation from very low density residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre) to Service In- dustrial on a 3-acre parcel located westerly of the inter- section of Painter's Path and 44th Avenue. 4. Schedule a Public Hearing to consider the matter for Febru- ary 15, 1977. . 5. Instruct the secretary to notify the City Council of the Commission's findings and actions. Mr. Fleshman then explained that at this time the Commission must not discuss the merits of this 'particular amendment as this was not a Public Hearing. Staff was merely asking the Commission to either set the matter for Public Hearing or not set the matter for Public Hearing. Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 209, setting the matter for Public Hearing on February 15, 1977. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. January 16, 1977 Page Two B. Discussion of Proposed C.V.C.W.D. Sewer Li,ir Extensions. Mr. Fleshman explained that the City had received a request from C.V.C.W.D.; that it was a standard request, but also an unusual request in that C.V.C.W.D. plans to install sewers on every street in the City located south of Highway 111. Mr. Fleshman further explained that the Water District had been granted the funds to accomplish this project and they did not receive funds to do the north side of the Highway. Finally, Mr. Fleshman stated that C.V.C.W.D. was asking that the Planning Commission find that this project would be in conformance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. There was a short discussion as to the effects this project would have on the City's street overlay program. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 207, finding that the above described project for the C.V.C.W.D. would be in conformance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. VII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases approved at the Design Review Board meeting of January 11, 1977. Mr. Fleshman explained to the Commission that there had been 6 items on the ORB agenda for January 11th and that 5 of these items had been approved. However, staff was only presenting 3 of the cases to the Commission at this time as the ORB had rejected one case (which dealt with a request for approval of a 4-unit apartment complex to be located at Ocotillo and Verba Santa); and the two other cases would be carried over to the meeting of January 25, 1977, in order to allow the Planning Commission to review the Public Hearing portions of each case. The first case that Mr. Fleshman presented was CASE NO. 40MF- Final construction drawings for 130 new units at IRONWOOD for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES. Mr. Fleshman gave a detailed descrip- tion of the project and showed all the plans to the Commission. He also explained that some minor changes had been made at the preliminary stage and that these changes were reflected in the drawings which he was presenting to the Commission tonight. After Mr. Fleshman's presentation, there were no questions by the Commissioners. The next case presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 21SA-New sign program for Geronimo's Restaurant-JOHN McCORMICK, Appli- cant. Mr. Fleshman gave the background on this project to the Commission and explained that the ORB had felt that the design of the new sign was excellent but that the size was inappro- priate. Further, under the new Sign Ordinance, the new sign would possibly be found to be non -conforming; as it was a free- standing sign and under the new Sign Ordinance, free standing signs for a building that has morethan one use would not be allowed. There was a discussion regarding the new Sign Ord that the City Council will hold a Public Hearing f of January. The Commission seemed concerned tha t n___ TL._-- Mr. Fleshman presented CASE NO. 48MF-final construction drawings for five model homes for AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Mr. Fleshman explained that the Commission had reviewed the pre- liminary drawings for this project in November. Further, these o • final drawings had all the improvements and modifications which n the Planning Commission and Design Review Board had wanted. ,Z, Mr. Fleshman then presented the plans and elevations to the Commission. ti1+ The Commission was concerned about the roof treatment on the back of Z. the first model. There was another short discussion regarding the sign for Geronimo's. Mr. Fleshman explained that Mr. McCormick could not be present at tonight's meeting; but that he asked that if the Commission could not decide on the matter, he would request that they con- tinue the matter to their meeting of February 15, 1977, so that he could be present and discuss the matter with the Commission. Commissioner Mills made a minute motion that Case No. 21SA be continued to the February 15, 1977 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Chairman Wilson then stated that,the Planning Commission still had a resolution before them regarding the two remaining ORB cases. Commissioner Kelly asked that a condition be added to Case No. 48MF, Model #201, deleting the rock and replacing it with crushed tile. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Kelly. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 208, with the deletion of Case No. 21SA and the addition of a sentence pertaining to the roof treatment on Model #201 for Case No. 48MF. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. There was a brief recess at 8:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:08 p.m. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. C.O.D. SPECIFIC PLAN Discussion of Housing, Conservation, and Parks & Recreation Elements. Mr. Freed presented the Housing Element to the Commission. Said element contains the goals and objectives, existing housing con- w ditions, analysis of future housing trends, student housing re- 0 quirements, and census data. Z There was a discussion pertaining to student housing. Commissioner N Berkey stated that we seemed to be getting closer to the answers on W M the student housing situation; however, there seemed to be a demand !3 N for centralizing student housing whereas the report indicated just Z the opposite. �.,.,.... Mr. Freed stated that he hoped to get a detailed survey regarding the student housing situation. Chairman Wilson was concerned with the type of questions that would be contained in the survey. Mr. Freed explained that the questions would pertain to the type of housing desired, economic scale criteria, etc. January 18, 1977 Page Four Chairman Wilson stated that the figure for the average age of a C.O.D. student (26 years) was a distorted figure. Further, the adult student was the student who typically already has housing. Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Freed to explain what types of projects would be contained in the comprehensive program of pub- lic works. Mr. Freed explained that streets, recreational, public insti- tutional and landscaping projects would be included. The discussion then centered on the drainage system for the C.O.D. area. Mr. Freed explained that the staff was working with the City o Engineer regarding the drainage system for the area. Mr. r Freed also pointed out the areas on the aerial map that are %, subject to flooding. n Ai � niAfter a lengthy discussion regarding the Housing Element, Chairman Wilson stated that his personal reaction to this report was that �- he was pleased with the direction that staff was. p7na �n ar1� Df ther, ,?+9`II8VE i Are, ,\ he liked the idea of a college mediation board. At this time, Mr. Freed distributed to each Commissio tual rendering of the C.O.D. Specific Plan Area -Neighborhood Park Plan. Mr. Freed then gave a presentation of the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation Element of the C.O.D. Specific Plan. His presentation included the introduction, goals and objec- -O tives, and a background of the element. O /Mr. Fleshman then explained to the Commission that the City y Council had formed a new Parks and Recreation Commission and that the Planning Commission would be working closely with the new Commission. After a discussion pertaining to this element, the Commission seemed to feel that the reports and information presented were a good begin- ning. They did feel that this element should be the last one considered in order to alb?AIShe new Pars and Recreation Commission to get off the ground. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Fleshman informed the Commission that he would be leaving the employ of the City at the end of the month. Further, he had enjoyed working with the Commission during his time with the City. B. City Attorney None C. Planning Commissioners Chairman Wilson asked if the City's Solar Energy Committee was still holding meetings. Mr. Fleshman answered that they had had 4 or 5 meetings in 1976 and that no meetings had been held since September. January 18, 1977 Page Five There was a brief discussion pertaining to the energy situation and fuel shortage situation. Chairman Wilson then asked about the "pad" controversy. Mr. Fleshman explained that the transcript from the last Planning Commission meeting had been turned over to the City Council for their meeting of January 13, 1977. Further, the same people who had been at the Planning Commission meeting spoke to the Council at their meeting on the 13th and the City Council has the matter under advisement. Mr. Fleshman then gave a brief recount of the City Council decisions pertaining to the re -zoning cases which had been heard at their last meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mills moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. ATTEST: S. ROY WILSON, CHAIRMAN PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 1977 Page Six MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TT 5796 (continued) A discussion ensued and Vice -Chairman Berkey re -opened the Public Hearing as Mr. Shayler had some additional comments reference the drainage problem. Mr. Shayler's comments pertained to the on -going maintenance problems and alternatives to the drainage system as pro- posed. He indicated that Ironwood would agree to be responsible for maintenance caused by their run-off. Vice -Chairman Berkey closed the Public Hearing and asked the Com- missioners for their comments on Condition No. 3. Commissioner Van de Mark stated she would be in favor of deferring the requirement for installation of a pedestrian way until such time that it was necessary. Commissioner Kelly agreed with Commissioner Van de Mark and asked staff for their help in rewording Condition No. 3. Vice -Chairman Berkey also agreed and Hunter Cook suggested the following rewording of Condition No. 3: 3. Developer shall enter into a future improvement agreement with the City to install a P.C.C. pedestrian way along the southerly side of Portola from Mariposa Drive to Buckboard Trail, at such time as the City deems necessary. Alignment shall be subject to approval of the City. Commissioner Van De Mark made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 163, with the corrections as noted pertaining to Con- ditions No. 3, 4, 17, 19, 21, and 23. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. CASE NO. 40MF - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - APPLICANT Review of site plan, elevations, grading, landscaping, and floor plans for 130 new units at the Ironwood Country Club. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report reference the above case. Mr. Fleshman explained that this project already had a Conditional Use Permit and the Tract Map was just recommended for approval to the City Council. He further explained that since no Development Plan was required, the staff was processing the items submitted to the Design Review Board Process as a separate matter. Mr. Fleshman also stated that the Design Review Board had approved the above re- quest as submitted, subject to 11 conditions of approval. Mr. Flesh - man further recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 164, subject to the 11 conditions of ap- proval and based his recommendation on the following justifications: 1. The project conforms to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The project meets the requirements of Section 25.14 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 3. The project conforms to the adopted Conditional Use Permit for the development There being no questions of staff at this time, Vice -Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant was present to address the Commission. -5- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1976 VIII. NEW-BllSINESS A. CASE NO. 40MF (continued) JOHN BALLEW, Morris-Lohrbach & Associates, 17848 Sky Park Boulevard, Irvine, California 92664 - Mr.-Ballew stated he was the architect for the applicant and on behalf of his client, he stated they were in com- plete agreement with the 11 conditions of approval. Commissioner Kelly moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 164, subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of cases heard at the meeting of July 20, 1976. Mr. Fleshman requested that the Commission review Mr. Ricciardi's letter of appeal at this time since it pertained to Item No. 6 on the Design Review Board agenda (Case No. 32C-L.H.GILLIGAN). Mr. Felshman stated the Commission had three options reference the letter of appeal. There were as follows: 1. The Commission could uphold the findings of the Design Review Board and ask the architect to come up with another design. 2. The Commission could agree with Mr. Ricciardi and overturn the decision of the Design Review Board. 3. The Commission could request the applicant to do some further study of the design and then bring it back to the Commission. Vice -Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant was present. ALFRED COOK, a representative of Mr. Ricciardi who is the architect for the project, 73-700 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California - Mr. Cook explained to the Commission that if the matter were again deferred, this would cause a hardship on his client. A short discussion ensued between the Commission and staff reference the parking and design problems of the project. Commissioner Van de Mark made a motion to send the case back to the Design Review Board to iron out differences and return it at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. At this time, Mr. Fleshman reviewed the Design Review Board cases which had been approved at their meeting of July 20, 1976. There was a brief discussion reference the absence of members at the Design Review Board meetings and staff acting as alternate members. It was the general consensus of the Commission to continue the discussion of this problem to their next study session. Commissioner Kelly had attended the Design Review Board meeting of the 20th and she commented on Case No. 39MF and stated it was her personal opinion that the case should not have been approved without color scheme samples being presented. She also expressed concern about the high main- tenance costs that could result and requested specific Design Review Board consideration of the matter. Mr. Fleshman stated that the Commission had the power to reject the findings of the Design Review Board reference Case No. 39MF. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE July 29, 1976 APPLICANT SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES P. 0. BOX 1727 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 CASE NO. 40MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of July 27, 1976 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 164 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. 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 Applicant County Road Department CVCWD 7/23/76 CITY of PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: Site Plan for a Portion of Ironwood Country Club Case No.: 40MF Applicant: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES I. REQUEST: That the Planning Commission approve a 37-acre Site Plan for the Ironwood Country Club, located on the east side of Maripose Drive, south of Portola Avenue. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Plan by Planning Commission Resolution No. 164, subject to the attached conditions. Justification is based upon: 1. The project conforms to the Palm Desert General Plan 2. The project meets the requirements of Section 25.14 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 3. The project conforms to the adopted Conditional Use Permit for the development. III. BACKGROUND: Acreage: 37 acres Units: 56 single-family detached units 74 duplex units 137U total units IV. DISCUSSION: This project already has a Conditional Use Permit and the Tract Map is before you. Since no Development Plan is required, we are processing the items submitted to the DRB process as a separate matter. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Grading Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations. The DRB reviewed and approved the package as submitted, subject to conditions. -1- 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 164 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR 130 UNITS AT THE IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. 40MF WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did receive the recommendations of the Design Review Board pertaining to Case No. 40MF from its meeting of July 20, 1976; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board has recommended that Case No. 40MF be approved subject to the attached conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon receiving and considering the testimony and arguments of all persons who desired to be heard, did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve said project: 1. That the proposed development conforms to all legally adopted development standards. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing, or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not unreasonable interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or proposed developments, and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detri- mental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan of the City. 4. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures, and colors. 5. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which it is located and all other applicable requirements. 6. The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert as follows: Q -1- 1. Resol >n No. 164 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission. 2. That it does hereby approve Case No. 40MF, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a continued meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, held on the 27th day of July, 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, VAN DE MARK, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MILLS, WILSON ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE BERKEY, VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTEST: STEPHEN A. FLESHMAN, ACTING SECRETARY r -2- C Resolution No. 164 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - - y 23, 1976 CASE NO. 40MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-N), and as revised according to DRB action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substan- tial change requires approval by the ORB. 2. 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. 3. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this pro- ject, commencing within one year from approval date and being prompt- ly completed. n 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 All service and distribution lines for utilities shall be placed under- ground. No roof.top air conditioning equipment shall be permitted. Landscaping with irrigation system shall be provided as shown. Perimeter screening in the form of fencing and landscaping shall be provided as shown. Elevations are approved as shown. Sewer hookup shall be made. Curb and gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Construction plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Process for approval prior to issuance of any building permit. AGREEMENT I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with all the conditions set forth, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. Date) (Applicant's Signature r, C�la�� o0 n= 5MCE�03(:E)IP 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACT DATE January 24, 1977 APPLICANT SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES P. 0. Box 1727 Palm Desert, California 92260 CASE NO. 40MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of January 18, 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED xxxxxx APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 208 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. 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 Applicant County Road Department CVCWD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 208 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF JANUARY 11, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of January 11, 1977, approving: Case No. 40MF - Final Construction Drawings for 130 New Units at IRONWOOD for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES; Case No. 21SA - New Sign Program for Geronimo's Restaurant for JOHN McCORMICK; Case No. 48MF - Final Construction Drawings for Five Model Homes for AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. WHEREAS, at this time, upon receiving and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find sufficient facts and reasons to exist to approve the Design Review Board actions of January 11, 1977. 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) That Case No. 21SA is to be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 15, 1977; 3) That the roof treatment for Model No. 201 for Case No. 48MF, be changed from rock to crushed tile; 4) That said Planning Commission does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of January 11, 1977. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of January, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE S. ROY WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: a PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENRT SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES E D CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS Ii :ORRECT PI SE NOTIFY US PROMPTLY NO R CE ITT ..EII PALM DESERT, CALIF. DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 7/15/76 Design Review Board Application Fee for Tract 5554, Phase II 50.00 tf k 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 ^ f TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: January 11, 1977 REPORT ON: 130-Unit Planned Residential Development CASE NO.: 40MF ZONE: PR-7 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Portola and Mariposa APPLICANT: Silver Spur Associates NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final Construction Drawings DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB approves this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: January 11, 1977 Motion Made By: Minturn Seconded By: Williams Vote: Unanimous Reasons for Negative Vote (s): (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (l5) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: CASE NO. 4oM f_ CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 1. Location of Property _Ironwood Country Club 2. Assessor's Parcel No. of Property: 631-260-002 8 005; 631-270-019 3. Zoning Classification of Property: PR-7 (CUP 1382 4. Use of structure(s) proposed: i Single Family Residential, attached and detached _ 5. Gross industrial or commercial building area or number and type of residential units or signs: 130 Total Residential Units C. Applicant: (Please print) Silver Spur Associates (Name) Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1727 (Please print) TsTrFeet Address) Palm Desert California _97 6n_____ (City) (State) (Zill ) Phone: (714) 346-0551 (Area Code) (Number) Names and addresses of others who should receive an agenda notify- ing them of the hearing: (Please print) 7. I hereby certify that I have read and understand the adopted Standard Conditions of Approval of the Architectural Review Board as set forth in thirpfi.cafX i.on. Signature cf AI, SPUR ASSOCIATES, a General Partnership by Ironwood Corporation, Managing Partner by R.L. Spicer, President 8. Property Owner: (Please print) SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES (Name) - Wailing Address: P.O. Box 1727 (Please print) (Street Address) ` Palm Desert Californiz (City) (State Phone: ( 714 ) 346-0551 (Area Code) (Number) TO BE USED BY STAFF Based on the fact that this application is accompanied by the materials and information outlined in the instructions, 1 accept it for review by the Architectural Review Board. gnazure e Fee Paid Case No. Assigned _ Meeting Date Assigned Reason for ARB Review = Categorical Exemption Class No. IJ E.I.R, process complete __Case No. L Ministerial Project CC: Applicant IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB July 15, 1976 Preliminary Color Proposal Exterior Color Schemes: Scheme A X-97 Pacific Sand (Stucco) 1) Trim: Old Quaker Semi Solid 164 1) Trim: Old Quaker Semi Solid 156 Scheme B X-34 San Simeon (Stucco) 1) Trim: Old Quaker Semi Solid 160 2) Trim: Old Quaker Solid 161 Scheme C X-48 Meadowbrook (Stucco) 1) Trim: Old Quaker Semi Solid 162 2) Trim: Old Quaker Solid 162 General Notes: Roofing: Monray Roofing Tile - Flat Concrete Chocolate Brown Chimney Cap to match roofing color. mTrA�,4 C.-' NIdv!E✓' C:)MI�N N ;A V�I EGA Lk U EE � (-� ORCHID !D T�2 HCNRry LDOJ.Sr jAn^-+�ANMA ►. AGERG I:ZCC- "aA I NtACA CR�A M` t'L� (RED) i 'f'UL_U5 NICE, ` ITPtd OA' 1- ' Dy POD, CA�Cc EUCALYPTUS IRI--N 54R K ME' AL.E+.ICE !:J!h;^��.��?�l `✓1A C-.AJEPt r -Tl:;zI✓E Gt1, r—INUIS r!Nt—A ITAL1146 G,_- E FINE AIAI3EL IA Mn!=LOPA, cASSI A IDI E)YA,O E3C� -/A C IICNE�ASTE-R LOW I=A2 s MUONYMUS FORTUNE I C-�2EV II..L�A NOEL L! HF-5E - A+ TDEPIGOAI t JUNIFER'UG) I=iTZ�R�A�1A, L.!C'c-7Rtjr\ P! TTC 5f'�RLJ��A. �t�7Rr3 I IzA XYLOSMrA SLOSGy ,ILIA SENNA C07M t A.5TEj:;,' . HCFSEEpBusN EUMYMUS �ZI✓VILL� PF!TZ�R� J�l�tl�, �r!NEA 70131RA SHINY XYLOr-W , STD JA V" I`J E Pam. Y';AlN Vl p F�A 1 Cc'