Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout48MF LANDSCAPING & SITE LAYOUT FOR TT 8237JAM ENVINONIvI01AL SEkV)CES C1TY OF PALM DESEKT, COMPANY 42-000 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIF. 92270 TELEPHONE (714) 328-8945 January 3, 1979 Mr. Lloyd Morgan Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA. 92260 SUBJECT: Non -adherence to Landscape Plans Parkview Estates Exhibit H - Case No. 48 MF Dear Lloyd: As you may know, I have purchased a home at Parkview Estates which is being developed by Affiliated Construction Company east of Portola Avenue in Palm Desert. The lot I have bought is Lot 130, Tract 8237. While this lot has not been landscaped as yet, I see a descrepancy taking place with the houses that are landscaped. Please review the landscape plans for the Plan Type 201. Lot 6 of Tract 8237 is a Plan 201. The items missing are as follows: 1. rio redwood header board separating lawn from ground cover areas. See Item #10 under Shrubs of plans. 2. Quantity of trees as shown on plans not there: should have 5 to 9 trees depending upon scheme. 3. The landscape plans show concrete stepping stones to back gate. There are none on job. 4. The street tree is shown to go behind the curb in the sidewalk. They have it in the front yard. I'll bet the home buyer will ,)ove it to the back. 5. The tree type "A" is an olive tree. There aren't any olive trees on the job. 6. As an added discrepancy, Plans 201, 302, 402 and 301 have a grouping of 1-3', 1-5' and 1-7' Mexican Fan Palms shown on the plans, but there are no palm trees on the job. Mr. Lloyd Morgan January 3, 1979 Paqe 2 7. The ground cover planted at 12 O.C. is not installed. Lloyd, I bought this house knowing that their landscape package as required by the Planning Review Board was adequate. The landscape job that they are doing now is poor. Let me know your findings before I go ahead and close escrow. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, i OHN L. LAS: ice Presidei JLB/gc PARKVIEW DEVELOPMENT Phase II Production Production Sequence Lot Plan Sequence Lot Plan 1 6 201B 35 140 401A 2 7 302E 36 141 402A 3 8 401B 37 124 402A 4 9 402B 38 125 401A 5 10 301E 39 126 402A 6 11 402B 40 127 502B 7 12 402A(R) 41 128 401A g 13 402B 42 129 401B 9 14 301B 43 130 401A 10 15 402A 44 131 301B 11 16 301A 45 149 301A 12 17 402A(R) 46 150 301B(R) 13 98 402B(R)) 47 151 201B 14 99 301B(R 48 152 401A 15 100 201A 49 153 301B(R) 16 101 402B 50 154 301A 17 102 402A 51 155 301E 18 103 301A 52 156 401E 19 104 302B 53 157 402A 20 142 402A(R 54 158 402B(R) 21 143 30IB(R 55 159 401A(R) 22 144 402ACR 56 160 301B 23 145 301A(R 57 161 301A 24 146 302B 58 162 301B 25 147 301ACR 59 _ 163 401ACR) 26 148 302A(R; 60 164 201B 27 132 301A 61 165 301A 28 133 402B 62 166 302A 29 134 402A 63 167 402A 30 135 401A 64 168 301E 31 136 402ACR) 65 169 402A 32 137 301A(R) 66 170 302A(R) 33 138 201A 67 171 402A 34 139 302A 68 172 301A(R) Summary No of No of Plan Units Plan Units 201A 2 302B 4 201B 3 401A 9 301A 11 401B 3 301B 11 402A 14 302A 4 402B 7 c,t; r �6 ) UZ k + S' N_ u +' w N y r o 3 s r � w v � n _ r v Y V r O r r r z 8 e s u - Y N « O o V y r S w 0 x - i L i i S i DEEP CANYON ROAD Z (,AjjiQiated Construction Co., 9Ae- December 6, 1977 Mr. Paul Williams Environmental Services City of Palm Desert, 45275 Prickly Pear Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Five (5) model homes, Rutledge-Parkview Sub -division 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 a period of from 60 to 90 days. Our problem is lack of water to maintain the extensive land- scaping that is planned. We will be installing sewer very shortly, followed by curb and gutters and immediately followed by water; and, at that time, the required landscaping will be immediately installed. Thank you for your cooperation. odman, President CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. RECEIVE® DEC y 1977 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY 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 Presidem 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE Oct. 19 1977 APPLICANT Affiliated Construction Attn: Frank Uoodman 77-900 Avenue of the States Palm Desert, Ca. 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 Oct. 19. 1977 CONTINUED DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 293 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. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission October 19,' 1977 Page Five VIII. NEW BUSINESS (Cent.) MINUTESAMENDE Having discussed the three major concerns of the Commi sibn ' L he then asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Kelly asked about the progress on the sewer lines, to which Mr. Weeks indicated that a majority of the proposed lines have been installed. Chairman Berkey asked about the flood control problem, Mr. Weeks replied that the Bechtel Report would be reviewed for all the cities involved Friday morning, October 21st, at 9:30 a.m. at C.V.C.W.D. Chairman Berkey asked about the importing of Colorado River water and its quality. Mr. Weeks indicated that it costs more to treat State water than the Colorado River water. Commissioner Snyder complimented Mr. Weeks on his organization and thanked him for his presentation. The Commission also thanked Mr. Weeks for his time and his presentation. THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 2:30 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 2:40 P.M. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Cent.) B. Review of Landscaping Concept for Parkview Subdivision Case No. 48MF, and the Fencing Plan for Case No. 77MF approved by the Design Review Board at their meeting of August 10, 1977. Mr. Williams reviewed Case No. 77MF noting that there was a revision of the plans for the walls on Club circle and ale the loth tee. It will be slumpstone painted green to protect a cent homes. ." Mr. Williams then reviewed Case No 48MF ting the 10 different ��� landscape plans for 10 different elevation He tated that $300 would be added to the purchase price to cover the of landscaping. Some discussion followed with regard to the landscaping being done and when. Mr. Williams indicated that the owner would have a choice of selecting one of the landscape plans or submitting his own to the City for approval. FRANK GOODMAN, 77-900 Avenue of the States, applicant, spoke to the Commission noting that the owner would not get his $300 back until the landscaping was done if the owner chose to do it on his own. It was moved by Commissioner Snyder and seconded by Commissioner Reading to approve the actions of the Design Review Board by Planning Commission Resolution No. 293; carried unanimously (5-0). X. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XII. COMMENTS (Cent.) C. Planning Commissioners MINUTES AMENDED w�-en Commissioner Kelly asked if the COD Area Specific Plan E R e eJ would be distributed to the school principals. Mr. Williams noted that they would receive a copy. She also asked if the entrance to the alley off of Portola between Highway 111 and E1 Paseo would be changed. Mr. Williams noted that there would be two entrances. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 293 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE ACTIONS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TAKEN ON AUGUST 10, 1977 ON CASE NO. 77MF AND CASE NO. 48MF. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the action of the Design Review Board taken on August 10, 1977 on Case No. 77MF and Case No. 48MF, approving: CASE NO. 77MF - Request for approval of a perimeter fencing and wall plan for Shadow Mountain Resort and Racquet Club for PALM DESERT VENTURE, INC.; CASE NO. 48MF Request for approval of a Landscaping Concept for Parkview Subdivision for AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION CO.; 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 action of the Design Review Board taken on August 10, 1977, on Case No. 77MF and Case No. 4811F. 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 con- stitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the action of the Design Review Board taken on August 10, 1977 on Case No. 77MF and Case No. 48MF. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of October, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, KELLY, SNYDER, READING NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ks %CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. to-126 OCTOBER 14, 1976 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CAST NO. TRACT 8237 1. Full public improvements including paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, signing, sewer, water and drainage facilities, and necessary appur- tenances shall be installed as required by Ordinance, these conditions, and the City Engineer. 2. Drainage facilities satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be provided. These shall be sufficient to maintain at least one lane of traffic free of water on local streets in a one-year storm and two lanes for collectors. Water shall not be allowed to top the curb in a ten-year storm and shall not be allowed to flood any building pads in a one -hundred year storm. 3. An additional easement for public utility, sidewalk, and street tree purposes shall be provided on each side of the streets. 4. Magnesia Falls Drive and Deep Canyon Road shall be constructed with full (32 foot travelway). public improvements adjacent to the subdivision. A 20 foot minimum width connection, built and paved to City Standards, shall be provided between the subdivision and existing paved section of Deep Canyon Road to the south. Timing shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 5. Rutledge Way (Avenue) shall be improved as a half street (22 foot travelway) between Portola Avenue and the easterly edge of the school and full width (44 foot travelway) from that point to Magnesia Falls Drive. No sidewalks -will be required on the west side of Rutledge Way (Avenue) adjacent to the proposed park site. 6. Developer shall provide 5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalks on both sides of all interior streets, as required by the City Engineer. 7. The southerly right-of-way line of Magnesia falls Drive shall be modified as necessary to insure a minimum 10 foot parkway between the right-of-way line and southerly curb line. 8. Access rights on all lots abutting Magnesia Falls Drive extended and Deep -Canyon Road shall be offered to.the City as a dedication on the final map. -9. The proposed street names are not approved. Prior to submittal of the final .map, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street names shall be made by the Director of Environmental Services. 10. All lots shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet. Any modification of the -proposed lot pattern that results from any condition attached by the City shall not be construed as a right to reduce the square footage of the lots to less than 9,000 square feet. 11. In compliance with Article 26.15 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, an area in the amount of 2.7 acres shall be provided westerly of Rutledge Way (Avenue) as an offer for dedication to the City for neighborhood and com- munity park facilities as a part of the approval of the final map. To accomplish this requirement, the lot pattern shall be revised to provide for the relocation of Rutledge Way (Avenue) subject to the approval of the City Engineer, 12. The section of Desert Star Boulevard between the existing improvements and "F" Street shall be constructed as a pedestrian and bicycle way. The existing improvement shall be curbed as necessary to exclude throgh traffic at this time. The unimproved portion of the right-of-way shall be land- scaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. -1- I A City Council Resolution ,110. 7b-126 Conditions of Approval Tract No. 8237 October 14, 1976 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. The lot pattern.as shown is not approved; a revised lot pattern shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer based upon the requirements of Con- dition No. 10 and the following: All corner lots shall have a minimum lot width of 80 feet and all interior lots shall have a minimum lot width of 70 feet. On lots fronting on cul- de-sacs or knuckle streets, the minimum lot width at the street shall be 35 feet. 14. The proposed connection of Erin Street shall be 32 feet of improvements within a 42 foot wide dedication plus the easement required under Condi- tion No. 3. 15. The remnant of property located easterly of Lot 16 is not approved. Said area shall be incorporated into an adjacent lot. 16. Street lights of a design and location acceptable to the City Engineer shall be installed throughout the proposed subdivision as a part of the public -improvements I have read and do agree to the above listed conditions. Date Applicant's Signature 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. I`l 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. r C Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission August 17, 1977 Page Three VIII. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) A. C.V.C.W.D. Booster Station Discussion (Continued) 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 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 ao 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. Case No. 48MF - AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION, applicant - request for approval of a landscaping concept for Parkview Subdivision.