Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout48MF AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANYI (,4tttQtated ConthudioR Co.. Aie- -rfls-lzo February 22, 1979 Palm Desert City Hall Planning Department 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attn: Mr. Lloyd Morgan Re: Parkview Tract 8237 Palm Desert, Ca. Gentlemen: We respectively request that you allow the final building inspection to proceed on Lot 169 on the above referenced sub -division. At present time we have not installed fences, sprinklers or landscaping. However, we feel that these items should be installed by 3-1-79. This request is made in view of the hardships imposed upon the buyers at this present time. Sincerely, Richard R. Oliphant plyffl>m� FEB 2 2 i ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM LESERT EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-900 AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: (714) 345-2626 FRANK R. GOODMAN, President Contractor's License No. 186863 RICHARD OLIPHANT, Vice Preside IuAffAated Conthudion Co.. 9nc. RECEIVED DEC 18 December 18, 1978 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert City Hall 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attention: Mr. Lloyd Morgan Planning Division Re: Parkview Units: Lot 144 - 74-381 Santolina Dr. Lot 156 - 43-121 Balsam Lane Lot 157 - 43-151 Balsam Lane Lot 167 - 43-151 Buttonwood Dr. Lot 170 - 43-100 Rutledge Dr. Dear Lloyd: We are hereby requesting that the City of Palm Desert, Planning Department approve the above 5 houses on December 18, 1978 without fencing and Landscaping so that we might move these people in before Christmas. We hereby agree to install the fencing and landscaping per the enclosed contract, just as soon as our fencing contractor and landscaping contractor can complete the work. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Happy Holidays! Sincerely, odman, President Construction Co.,Inc. FRG:hw EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-900 AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: (714) 345-2626 FRANK R. GOODMAN, President Contractor's License No. 186863 RICHARD OLIPHANT, Vice Presid uAfftQtated Congthudion Co. 9nc- December 12, 1978 City of Palm Desert, City Hall - Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Mr. Lloyd Morgan Planning Division Re: Parkview Units: No. 156 - 43-121 Balsam Lane No. 167 - 43-151 Buttonwood and No. 170 - 43-100 Rutledge all of Palm Desert, Calif. Dear Lloyd: RECEIVED DEC 1 n' ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF, PALM DESERT, Per our conversation this afternoon, I am hereby requesting that the City of Palm Desert, Planning Department, approve the above 3 houses on December 18, 1978, without fencing so that we might move these people in before Christmas. We hereby agree to install the fencing per the enclosed contract, just as soon as our fencing contractor can complete the work. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Happy Holidays! bdman, President CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FRG: Enc. I EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-900 AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: (714) 345-2626 FRANK R. GOODMAN, President Contractor's License No. 186863 RICHARD OLIPHANT, Vice Presides B-CONTRACTOR'S AGRM4rL' ' THIS AGREEMENT, made this f 7° 19 by and between , . A corporation, herein called "Builder," and nr...z t i e r l r ORb P412ier Sift FI a TFl>:nsen herein called "Subcouvartnr •• WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Builder Is caantructing and erecting certain buildings and improvements consisting d 68 houses inclut'.ino: 2 201A 4 302A 14 492A 3 201B 4 3171211 7 402B it 301A 9 401A 11 301B 3 401B angora", t:1rU17,^� thru lf)»,12'1TZblru 172;. 1237 tothecawtya piyersidP State of as per plane and specifications and the addenda thereto (herein called the 'project"); and WHE ereto desire toenter into a subcontract with respect to the work hereinafter described, NOW, THEREFORE. in consideration of the mutual coverante herein contained, the parties agree as IuHows: 1. The Subcontractor shall famish all labor, material, &kill, equipment, supplies, and all other things necessary or incidentally required therein called the "work") to perform and complete in accordance with the plane and specifications and addenda that portion of the project referred to as "Parl.view Pevelorym(antl' as nrenared by Architect Fexton, Weiner and Associates dated Jan. 7, lg77,and revised Atig. 25, 1977 The Subcontractor acknowledges that the purpose of this agreement Is to provide for the entire performance and completion of the work and to that end has exam - load all at the plans and specifications and addenda from beginning to end with the understanding that the work may be scattered throughout different parts of said plane, specifications and addenda. 2. The Builder shall pay to the Subcontractor for the work the total sum of g payable an follows: 1. 2.) All necessary finis': '-ratin! ready to recieve fences and landscaping comalete at 91.00 Tier lot. 3.) Redwood (or cedar) fencin.- to Tr -Itch fencing on lots 1 - 5 completely including per'nits a.t %.21 per lineal foot. 4.) Payment to he by voucher progressively as worl, is comnieted and accepted. 3. Smpe of Work: The Submntnaor agree, far the consideration shown to do work u follows: .t ♦ ! - f ! E'1 !!et! 1 T iT}K'!.!+"s'f It a' _ is r:�kkiiso:ase. 3� 1111I1g i.) Finis', Trade shall include su',contr-ictor nrovidin�; necessary 1Rlnr .r.,-q egaiPment. 4.) Fences are to be co,r,rion on property lines and 5 feet high except where paralellinv existinv, fences. It shall then be 6 feet high. 4. The Subcontractor shall pay for all materials, labor, equipment and Instrumentalities used an or in connection with the wort when or u bills or claims therefor become due, and shall protect the premises, and the Builder from all claims and mechanic's time on account therefor, and shall famish Builder, prior W the payment of any $oma due Subcontractor hereunder, with receipted bills and invoices for all materials or equipment furnished to or to be need up® the pro- ject by him to such date, together with releases of Itea thereof if demanded, and together with Subcontractor's current itemized payroll to date. Such Itemized payroll shall set forth the periods and amounts for each of Subcontractor's employees and shall be signed by each each employee acknowledging receipt of sums shown therein. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver of the right of Subcontractor to file mechanic's lien claims as against Builder in the event of Builder's failure to pay the Subcontractor sums due hereunder, provided Subcontractor is not in default under the contract. 5. The Subcontractor shall commence the work as soon as the project is ready for such work, or within calendar days after being notified in writing by the Builder so to do and shall complete maid work in a diligent fashion and as rapidly an the conditioned project will permit; however, in no event will the Subcontractor be allowed more than work days in which to complete the work. It is understood that the economical progress of the project de- pends upon the continued cooperation of each Subcontractor thereon. Subcontractor agrees that he shall be liable for losses occurring to Builder occasioned by any delays on Subcontractor's part to complete the work promptly to accordance with time limitations hereof but that It would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage to Builder caused by such delay. Therefore, should Subcontractor tali to complete the work within the time specified. Subcontractor shall pay to Builder, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, the mum of i er day for each and every day required to complete the work beyond the time above set forth. Subcontractor shall not be held risponsible for any delays or interruptions unavoidably caused by riots, strikes, acts of Government. Inclement weather or scat of God, and Subcontractor hereby waives any and all claims against Builder for damages for any act, omission or delay caused by Builder, or any other Subcontractor, and hereby undertakes the work subject to all conditions as they now exist or may arise. 6. Builder shall not be required to make any final payments hereunder until Subcontractor furnishes full releases or discharge of the lima with respect to materials and labor used by Subcontractor in the performance of this contract or until the time within which liens may be, filed by any matortal-man or mechanic shall have expired. H any liens are flied Builder may withhold the amount thereof from final payments due Subcontractor until lime are satisfied or discharged - If an sell= to brought by Builder under thlm agreement as a result of any default or breach hereof by Subcontractor or H Builder is required to defend itself in any action to foreclose any lien for labor or materials furnished Subcontractor. Builder shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. 7. Subcontractor further agrees that if any lien or Uses shall be filed for work done or materials furnished by or for Subcontractor. Sub- contractor shmll, within five (5) days thereafter, at his own coat and expense, cause such lien or Hem to be discharged, and Subcontractor's failure to do so shall be an .,.at of default hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, having also read the additional Terms and Conditions as shown on the reverse side of this Sub -Contractor's Agreement, have incorporated them herein and executed this Instrument �the /date first above written. By Preal en[ By gDC0-2 Soccretary �_ "BUILDER" t REV. m/&/ail 1 wEI GARY A" DIAW& bLjr'K'S1 DO AI..REE TO CDMPLETE THL LAKIDSCAPING IN -,H PR0W- of nLaZ ZaSIOEAICr 43121 RAL5AM L-nWG w1THIN �J bAys 01 Ouz OCCuPAK)cy. A1PAlcsaMAY e ngT6 a cc_ CuPIJ nlcy _ 12-2U-�%t CITY C7 PAUA DESERT n j—WR'f Ce^ Z!'t T O EUVIRW,VENTAL SERYMES ❑ C.C. RES. NO. ❑ P.C.REL. NO. _ ❑ STAFF LETTER ❑ D.R-B.:.CTiON FORM 6T /2 j Dat. CO.STRUt ,OH SMALL CODUENCE'rMOO f YEAR OF THIS APPROVAL. al .,.,. O ILY., 11 ,u i1 .TONfiS ' `..,...aO 0 ul„fi. c nur0 0 (� tour TRE[ BaI,l-D �g e .ul U Inu6n1111 - LAWW i REDWWb BARK RG-S # 4312-1 BALSAM 1-AWE Q xuxA / C� L `NnD 41 yuccA PLAITS ......,. ..:...x....,a � 1 I PALM TREES •+ .R .•...••,,, , 1 to ti w & 01 VuccA 41 • .. .. ,,.,...., rl �.i'a - _ ,rt�eD. aUULD6 RS 4 ' V Q s uAffiPtated Congthudion Co, 9Pc. March 3, 1978 Mr. Paul Williams Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Five (5) model homes, Rutledge-Parkview Subdivision Dear Mr. Williams: We hereby request that the requirement for landscaping to be completed prior to the final Building Division approval and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy be waived for another period of 60 days. We are having water problems and as outlined in a prior letter, the sewer will be installed and gutters applied immediately and when completed the required landscaping will be immediately installed, which we hope to have completed within the 60 days. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, :mmi • , President RUCTION CO., INC. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EXHIBIT NO CASE RECEIVED PJIIV 19IQ � �r� � ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES rITy OF PALM DESERT EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-900 AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: (714) 345-2626 FRANK R. GOODMAN, President Contractor's License No. 186863 RICHARD OLIPHANT, Vice Preside, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE August 18, 1977 APPLICANT AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION Attn: Frank Goodman 77-900 Avenue of the States u e. .1 CASE NO.: 48MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of August 17, 1977 CONTINUED TO XX DENIED (Commission wants to see a total landscaping plan, which would include the alternative plans available to homeowners.) APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92200 TELEPHONE (714) 346-OGII DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: Aug. 10, 1977 REPORT ON: Parkview S CASE NO.: 48 ME ZONE: R-L, 9 nnn LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Portola & Rutledge APPLICANT: Affiliated Construction NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Landscaping Concept DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB APPROVED this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: 819177 Motion ?lade By: Hill Seconded By: Johnson Vote: 3-0 (Johnson abstained) Reasons for Negative Vote (s): appeal o 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 CO:VENTS : e: Juiy 28, 1977 ;i•;;. ,,i t;1: Parkview Subdivision 0.: 48MF iI, .•;. R-1, 9,000 Southeast corner of Portola & Rutledge Affiliated Construction Final Landscape Layout Selections ,v a _ r B delete from.Resolution 7/26/77 nC2 /: Hobbs _ i Leung Approved 3-0, Johnson abstain. iy,1C 1'r''I1 ,• .,I _ ,1 _ l �I) 5 See attached minutes a r Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 17, 1977 VIII. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) A. C.V.C.W.D. Booster Station Discussion (Continued) Page Three It was suggested that the process of filing an application be studied and try to simplify the process to save staff and applicant time and trouble. It was also suggested that the Commission draft a letter to the various service agencies covering the various problems in the area and ask for the their assistance in solving the problems and possibly the different heads of these agencies could be asked to speak to the Commission in a joint study session with the City Council. Chairman Berkey indicated that a feasibility study be done on new projects and if they are not feasibile to the City and the services it can provide, they should be rejected and the reasons noted so that the public and the developers become aware of the issues. He also suggested that Mr. Weeks of the C.V.C.W.D. be asked to attend the next meeting in September. A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder to find that the proposed projects are in conformance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan and approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 275; carried unanimously (5-0). IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of August 9, 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the cases: ( Case No. 77MF - PALM DESERT VENTURE, applicant - request for approval 1( of fencing plan for Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club. Commissioner Snyder pointed out that the fence is supposed to be wrought -iron mesh, small enough that a golf ball cannot go through it. The.Commission rejected the case until the correct fence plan is submitted. Case No. 57C - CLARENCE SABA, applicant - request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a commercial complex. Commissioner Kelly requested that Conditions No. 19 and 20 be deleted. Commissioner Kryder noted that Condition No. 15 creates an economic hardship for the developer. The Commission approved the case with the deletion of Condition No. 19 and 20 and the revision of Condition No.15 to read: "Applicant should investigate various colors and materials to be utilized for paved areas". Case No. 83MF - DEEP CANYON, LTD., applicant - request for approval of pre- liminary site, floor and elevation plans for 212 single family residences. Discussion followed concerning the landscaping and whether the developer or the owner would be responsible, also some question as to the elevations. The Commission requested that the case be continued until the developer could be present to discuss the landscaping issue. N 'se No. 48MF - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION, applicant - request for approval of a landscaping concept for Parkview Subdivision. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 17, 1977 Page Four IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Continued) Case No. 48MF (Continued) Discussion followed regarding the developers plan to have the individual owners do their own landscaping with a choice of ten different plans which were not submitted for review. The Commission rejected the case until the plans for the 10 different concepts or one total concept for the landscaping were submitted. Case No. 78MF - AMERICAN WEST DEVELOPMENT, applicant - request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a duplex. Mr. Cipriani noted that the site plan needs reworking and that denial was re- commended or approve and ask for new plans prior to review by the Planning Commission. The Commission rejected the case until a revised site plan is submitted. A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 276 with the deletion of Case No. 48MF, 77MF, and 78MF, the continuance of Case No. 83MF and the approval of Case No. 57C with the deletion of Condition No. 19 and 20 and the revision of Condition No. 15; carried unanimously (5-0). X. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Staff Summary of the Draft Growth Impact and Evaluation Report prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. /and/ B. Staff Summary of the Draft Blowsand Control and Protection Plan prepared by the Blowsand Ad Hoc Task Force of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Mr. Freed asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Chairman Berkey indicated that it was his understanding that Staff was going to prepare Resolutions regarding the two CVAG reports which would be forwarded to the City Council giving that body an indication of the Commission's feelings re- garding the two documents. Mr. Freed stated that Staff could forward a copy of the Planning Commission Min- utes to the City Council and accomplish the same objective since the Resolutions had not been prepared. Commissioner Kryder stated that he objected to many areas of the reports from CVAG. In addition, he said that he believed the thrust behind the documents is at odds, philosophically, with the main stream of thought of area residents and expressed doubt as to whether the City of Palm Desert had anything to gain by future participation in CVAG. Mr. Cipriani indicated that he understood the Commissioner's concerns and that he had witnessed similar relationships between local governments and regional councils of government in other areas of the country. He noted that, quite often, regional councils of government find it difficult to respond to their local govern- ments' problems as most of their funding is from the State and Federal governments and they are heavily involved in projects and programs required of them in order to retain their funding. Futhermore, regional councils of government quite often become too academic and lose touch with reality and the basic problems local jurisdictions are confronted with. REPORT ON off `i E , nrm 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Parkview Subdivision CASE NO.: 48 MF Date: May 11 , 1977 ZONE: R-1, 9,000 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Portola & Rutl APPLICANT: Affiliated Construction NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Additional elevations DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB re'ected this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: 5/1 Hobbs Minturn Approved 4-0 (Urrutia Hobbs, Minturn, Leung) Reasons for Native Vote (s): Johnson abstained An appeal oe 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 CO!4MENTS: If the applicant presents the additional information requested by the Design Review Board to the Dept. of Environmental Services prior to May 23, 1977, this case can be reviewed by the DRB, once again, at their meeting of Mav 24. 1977. November 30, 1976 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 48MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-H), and as revised according to the Design Review Board Process. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Ser- vices. Any substantial change requires approval by the Design Review Board Process and the Planning Commission. 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 project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. All service lines for utilities shall be placed underground. 5. No roof top air conditioning equipment shall be permitted. 6. Landscaping (with irrigation system) shall be provided as modified for installation prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. 7. Perimeter screening in the form of fencing shall be provided as follows: (a) The west property line of Lot l shall be fenced with a decorative masonry wall. (b) Other fencing shall be designed and submitted to the Planning Staff for approval. 8. Curb, gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving along Rutledge Way shall be provided for by means of installation prior to final inspection. Con- struction shall conform to the specifications of the City Engineer. 9. Elevations are approved as shown. 10. Sewer hookup shall be made. 11. The front yard setbacks on all units throughout the subdivision shall be varied between 20 and 24 feet, at the discretion of the architect. 12. The side yard setback on Lot 1 shall be reduced to five (5) feet on the east side. 13. All drawings shall be corrected to conform with the approved plans. 14. The roof treatment on Plan 402 shall be restudied and resubmitted for approval. 15. Building Permits shall not be issued until the requirements of the Subdi- vision Ordinance have been met. AGREEMENT I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with all the conditions set forth, and understand 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'sSignature) .j VVL PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 247 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROV- ING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF MAY 24, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of May 24, 1977, including: Case No. 48MF - Additional elevations for Parkview Subdivision for AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; Case No. 27SA - Signs for a commercial structure for HARMON CENTER; Case No. 58SA - Signs for a commercial structure for ROY WILLIAM CARVER; Case No. 72MF - Preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a 9-unit apartment complex for BRICKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; Case No. 71MF - Preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a 55-unit condominium for DON GITTELSON; Case No. 53MF - Final construction plans for a 4-unit apartment pro- ject for LASZLO SANDOR; Case No. 20C - Landscape plan for a commercial structure for EL PASEO PROPERTIES; Case No. 68MF - Preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for 46- condominium units for PALM DESERT VENTURE, LTD.; Case No. 62MF - Final construction drawings for a television studio and offices for WENDELL VEITH; WHEREAS, at this time, upon considering and receiving all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find sufficient facts and reasons to exist to approve the Design Review Board actions of May 24, 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 the Commission hereby refers Case No. 58SA back to the Design Review Board for further consideration; 3. That an additional condition be added to the Conditions of Approval for Case No. 62MF to read as follows: "13. A six (6) foot chain link fence shall be constructed along the north property line. Such fence shall be screened by oleanders." 4. That it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of May 24, 1977 with the exception of Case No. 58SA. Planning Commission Resolution No. 247 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 31st day of May, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, KRYDER, READING, SNYDER, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE BER Y, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PAR A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r MAY 24, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 23SA 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all develop- ment plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-D), and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. Any minor changes require ap- proval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City, and 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 project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 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 & 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) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE June 1, 1977 APPLICANT Affiliated Can =action Co Attn: Frank Goodman 77-900 Avenue of the States —__ Palm Desert Ca 92260 CASE NO.: 48.qF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 31 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 247 PLACED ON THE AGE14DA 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. Cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION Minutes Palm Desert Planning May 31, 1977 Commission Page Eight IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED C.V.C.W.D. WATER LINE EXTENSIONS Mr. Williams reported that this was a proposal from the Coachella Valley County Water District to construct 1,000 lineal feet of water line in State Highway 111 from Deep Canyon Road to Shadow Hills Road and 550 lineal feet of water line in Sage Lane between E1 Paseo and Tumbleweed Lane. The staff had found the project proposed to be constructed by the Water District to be in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan and recommended approval by Planning Commission Resolution No. 245. Commissioner Kelly moved, and Commissioner Reading seconded, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 245; motion unanimously carried. XI. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF CASES ACTED ON BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 10, 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No. 45C - Bank of America; Case No. 67MF - Claude and Ronald Sullivan; Case No. 70MF - Silver Spur Association; and Case No. 26SA - Imperial Sign Company. Mr. Wexler of the Bank of America project addressed the Commission indicating that he had not been notified of the proposed changes. However, when Mr. Cipriani explained that they dealt mainly with the location and type of trees to be utilized, he waived any ob- jections. Commissioner Kelly moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 246, approving the Design Review Board actions of May 10, 1977. Commissioner Kryder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. B. REVIEW OF CASES ACTED ON BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 24, 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the folloring Design Review Board cases with the Commission: Case No. 48MF - Affiliated Construction Company Case No. 27SA - Harmon Center Case No. 58SA - Roy William Carver Case No. 72MF - Bricker Construction Company Case No. 71MF - Don Gittelson Case No. 73MF - Alfred H. Cook Case No. 53MF - Laszlo Sandor Case No. 20C - El Paseo Properties Case No. 68MF - Palm Desert Venture, Ltd. Case No. 62MF - Wendell Veith Commissioner Reading moved and Commissioner Kelly seconded to remove Cases No. 58SA and No. 73MF from the Resolution and approve the remainder of the cases by Planning Commission Resolution No. 247; motion unanimously carried. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (T14) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATEJanuary 24, 1977 APPLICANT AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 77-900 Avenue of the States Palm Desert, California 92260 CASE NO. 48MF 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 xxxxx APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 208 (See attached Minutes and Resolution pertaining to Model #201) 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 C 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 exisi 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 t 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEP14ONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: January 11, 1977 REPORT ON: Model Homes for Parkview Subdivision CASE NO.: 48MF ZONE: R-1-9,000 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Portola and Rutledge APPLICANT: Affiliated Construction 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: Motion Made By Seconded By Vote: January 11, 1977 Minturn Buccino Unanimous Reasons for Negative Vote (s): (An appeaZ 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: � 3 � I l/eiM .X� 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 III 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 meeting." 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 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 18, 1977 Page Two B. Discussion of Proposed C.V.C.W.D. Sewer Line 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 DRB agenda for January llth 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 DRB 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 DRB 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 more than one use would not be allowed. There was a discussion regarding the new Sign Ordinance and the fact that the City Council will hold a Public Hearing of January. The Commission seemed concerned that sign might not conform to the new Ordinance. The to think about the matter and asked Mr. Fleshman case. on same on the 27th Mr. McCormick's Commission decided to present the next 10 ta77 Dana Thwaa f 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 40 final drawings had all the improvements and modifications which the Planning Commission and Design Review Board had wanted. Mr. Fleshman then presented the plans and elevations to the Commission. co Ci 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 notion 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 DRB 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- d quirements, and census data. W a There was a discussion pertaining to student housing. Commissioner N Berkey stated that we seemed to be getting closer to the answers on W b the student housing situation; however, there seemed to be a demand zN 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 n Engineer regarding the drainage system for the area. Mr. Freed also pointed out -the areas on the aerial map that are subject to flooding. c h' n After a lengthy discussionregarding the Housing Element, Chairman Wilson stated that his personal reaction to this report was that he was pleased with the direction that staff was goinMqug-inti Ly urther, he liked the idea of a college mediation board. At this time, Mr. Freed distributed to each Commis' s-io"r-a-runceptual 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- tives, and a background of the element. O �`v`� Mr. Fleshman then explained to the Commission that the City ;r Council had formed a new Parks and Recreation Commission and Al that the Planning Commission would be working closely with =J �' the new Commission. 7 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 a11yq 4L�eSnev�`P k and Recreation Commission to get off the ground. . X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Of 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 advi semen•t. 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 The next case presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 48MF, five model homes for the PARKVIEW SUBDIVISION for FRANK GOODMAN. Mr. Fleshman presented the preliminary drawings and materials for this project to the Commission and stated that the Design Review Board had approved the project, sub- ject to some 15 conditions of approval. Mr. Fleshman also o reminded the Commission that they had reviewed the Tract Map o for this subdivision approximately a month ago and had approved z 't. w = Mr. Fleshman further explained that the five units would be Flocated at Rutledge Way and Portola Avenue and that no two Z units were alike. Further, the units varied distinctly in z appearance and ranged in size from 12,050 square feet to 16,000 square feet. Both Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification or rewording of Conditions No. 13 and No. 14. Staff agreed, and Mr. Williams gave the following rewording: 13. All drawings shall be corrected to conform to the approved plans. 14. The roof treatment on Plan 402 shall be restudied and resubmitted for approval. The final case to be presented by Mr. Fleshman was CASE NO. 18SA, the sign program for PLAZA TAXCO by CURT DUNHAM. Mr. Fleshman presented the proposed sign program to the Commis- sion and stated that the Design Review Board had approved said program subject to 5 conditions of approval. Mr. Fleshman then asked the Commission to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 202, approving the Design Review Board actions, to include their action on Case No. 42C, 48MF, and 18SA, and the revisions to the conditions of approval for Case No. 48MF. Commissioner Mills moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 202. Commissioner Reading seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1, with the following vote: Ayes: Berkey, Kelly, Mills, Reading z Noes: Wilson w Chairman Wilson stated that the reason he had voted no was because he h LU was in favor of having sidewalks installed throughout the commercial area and that he hoped his vote would not reflect on the project. D Z Mr. Fleshman then stated that the next case to be discussed would be CASE NO. 40C, working drawings for a new commercial building for CHRIS HAENEL. Commissioner Kelly asked to be excused from the discussion due to a -possible conflict of interest. She then left the Council Chambers. Mr. Fleshman presented the working drawings to the Commission and stated that the Design Review Board had approved these drawings at their November 23rd meeting. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of Resolution No. 203, approving the Design Review Board action. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolu- tion No. 203. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Kelly abstaining. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None November 30, 1976 Page Twelve CufttIT7 off 51c5r�f� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 -REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE December 7, 1976 ,•APPLICANT Affiliated Construction Company, Inc. 77-900 Avenue of the States Palm Desert, California 92260 CASE NO. 48MF 'The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of November 30, 1976 CONTINUED TO DENIED XXXX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 202 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 _wMit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 202 A RESOLUTIO^; OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF NOVEMBER 23, 1976. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of November 23, 1976, approving: Case No. 42C - Preliminary drawings for a new commercial building for ROGER MEYER CL_C�ase No. 48MF -) Five model homes for the PARKVIEW SUBDIVISION for FRANK GOOD14AN Case No. 18SA - Sign program for PLAZA TAXCO for CURT DUNHAM. 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 November 23, 1976. 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 it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of November 23, 1976; 3. That it does hereby amend Conditions No. 13 and No. 14 for Case No. 48MF, as follows: 13. All drawings shall be corrected to conform with the approved plans. 14. The roof treatment on Plan 402 shall be restudied and resubmitted for approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on the 30th day of November, 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, MILLS, READING NOES: WILSON ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 6. ROY WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 4ti PAUL �,. tJ'ILLIAMS, SECRETFlRV PP',i DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION P. November 23, 1976 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 42C 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all develop- ment plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibit A), and as revised ac- cording to the Design Review Board Process. Any minor changes require ap- proval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the. State, City, and 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 project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. Any roof mounted, exhaust, or air conditioning equipment shall be fully concealed from view from any public rights -of -way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means as shown. 5. All utility service lines shall be placed underground and a cash bond shall be posted for the undergrounding of the distribution lines along the Ales- sandro frontage. 6. Curb cuts shall be provided in conformance with City Standards. 7. The applicant shall install sidewalk along the Frontage Road to the specifi= cations of the City Engineer. 8. Final landscaping (with irrigation system) plans shall be provided to the Design Review Board Process for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. - 9. Lighting of parking areas and premises shall be provided as approved by the Director of Environmental Services. 10. Signage shall be provided in accordance with signage plan to be submitted to the Planning Staff for final approval. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Traffic Engineer. 12. Elevations are approved as shown. 13. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire Marshall prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until com- pleted. 14. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted to the Building official Process for approval prior to construction. 15. The site plan shall be revised as noted on Exhibit "A" to reflect modifica- tions to the parking lot. 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 permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confir- mation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. Date) (Applicant's Signature November 23, 1976 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 18SA 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all develop- ment plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-D), and as revised according to the Design Review Board Process and Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Design Review Board Process and the Planning Commission. 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 project, com- mencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. Individual business signs shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for ap- proval. 5. The directional sign facing E1 Paseo shall be moved to the interior court as indicated. 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 permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confir- mation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. Date (Applicant's Signature RECEIVED FROM : CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA TREASURER'S RECEIPT 0 IN PAYMENT OF: RECEIVED BY: 10.70 20M AMOUNT: S`�C N° 00880 S 3372 DISTRIBUTION ACCOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL 0 w H Q J Q w w w J Z 7 F- a w U w It Q F- 0 Z D W W Z UW is N � za z� W Z C � 00 W F Z -Wu� JW O � <m f 0 ON u W z CITY 1 PAIJA DESERT 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE PALM DrSENT CA. 92Z601714)34e-061I DEPARTMENT OFF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APR. NO.Oc:��.0 DATE REC % TO (DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE) APPLICANT (Please print) ' AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. (NAM E) _ 77-900 Avenue of the States (714) 345-2626 (Mailing address) (Telephone) Palm Desert, California 92260 (City.) State _-_ (Zip -Code) Request:(describo specific nature of approval requested) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FOR 5 MODEL HOUSES and a MODEL SALES OFFICE Property Duscription: -���— Part of Tentative Map Tract 8237, Por. S. W. 1/4 Sec. 16 400' % 112.5 East of Portola — South Side of Rutledge T5S , SBB & M approximately f Assessors Parcel Co.— Existing Zoning ---_------- Book 621 — Page 44 —1 R-1 Existing Gen. Plan Designation Property Owner Authorization: The undersigned s es that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give authorization for t e ling of this applicati . --—�R.necyv -I IL4LL w...., 18 —19-76 _ rT_-g„-_,LIF SVGS x. TnA£tignature a Uote T Assist D iet' te�� — Agreement Absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to ary Deed Rostnctions. ' 1 DO BY MY SIGNATURE. ON THISAGREEMENT, absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any dead restricti s that may be applicable to the property described herein. .TOSF.PH T_ HALL Nov_ Lg, 1976 U. S. LIFE SVGS. & LOANSignoture Assist. Vice—Pres. Date Signature Pres. Nov. 18, 1976 -Lnc. Date ,for staff use only) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Accepted ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICA EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION • • CASE ^IO. OTHER�AE l�—_�A► • S 1 V NOTE: APPLICANT MUST ALSO COMPLETE Rel-ATED SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION. I Reference Case NO CITY OF PALM DESERT SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review of: MODEL HOME COMPLEX (5 Houses) TYPE OF PROJECT AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. (APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY: ACTOR (Staff. D (1RI CASE NO. The Design Review Board process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert reviews detailed design and construction plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. FENCES, POOLS d DEPARTMENT DESIGN PLANNING DEPART'i:"EN OF ENVIRON- REVIEVY COMMISSION BUD -DING AND MENTAL BOARD (APPROVES OR SAFETY SERVICES (ADVISORY) DENIES PROJECT) STAFF INTERIOR REMODELS, MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS Department of Environmental Services Form 1: Approved by Planning Commission on ION