Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout62MF DESERT EMPIRE TV KMIR TVN di cl R 0 N, LL 9 a r r ul t- (T�t:Q zz Of°s IFM� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT W. 1 REPORT ON: Studio Offices & Television Studio CASE NO.: 62MF ZONE: PR-7 S.P. LOCATION: Northside of Park View Dr., West of Monterey APPLICANT: Desert Empire Television Corporation NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Change in colors for structure roofing. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB this }}r-o,}eo-t-, subject to the attached con itions. request Date of Action: July llth, 1978 Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: Unanimous vote 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 (15) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: Design Review Board approved the proposed Change in Color of the roof tile but declined to approve the proposed change in color for the structure. Those colors are approved as previously stated. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE June 1 1977 APPLICANT Wendell Veith 4777 Eagle Way Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 CASE NO.: 621MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of —MMny 11, 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 247 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. rci A S• III May 24, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 62MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all require- ments of Case No. CUP 08-76 as amended and to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits (A-D), and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval 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 and 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. Any roof mounted, exhaust, or air conditioning equipment shall be fully con- cealed from view from any public rights -of -way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. All utility service lines shall be placed underground. 6. Curb, gutter, street lights, sidewalk or approved pathways, bikeway, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. 7. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 8. Elevations are approved as shown, to be modified according to annotated changes. 9. Final construction drawings, including but not limited to revised landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, fencing, trash storage, color and material sample board, parking lot lighting, storage and loading, and signage plans shall be submitted for Design Review Board process approval prior to submittal of plans for building permits. 10. The landscaping plan shall include treatment of the equestrian trail along the northerly property line. 11. Drainage area east of the office building shall be shifted northward to ac- commodate future expansion of the parking lot. 12. A complete and detailed landscape plan shall be submitted totheDepartment of Environmental Services for approval prior to final inspection. 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 tho Department of Environmental Services. (Date �'� Q� 0V6�' ,(Applicant's Signature) Gres 0a'-7G MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 1977 7:00 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 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner BERKEY III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner BERKEY Commissioner READING Chairman WILSON Absent: Commissioner KELLY (excused absence) Commissioner MILLS (excused absence) Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Sam Freed - Assistant Planner Marcie Johnson - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 15, 1977. Commissioner Berkey noted a typographical error on Page 4, 4th paragraph from the bottom - change "deification" to "dedi- cation". A motion of Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, to approve the minutes, as corrected, of the March 15, 1977 meeting, was unani- mously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams informed the Commission that the only written communications were those dealing with the cases on tonight's agenda. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson explained to those present that the Commission had met in a Study Session prior to tonight's meeting for the purpose of asking ques- tions of staff pertaining to the staff reports. Further, there was no in- tent to arrive at any decisions or conclusions. Chairman Wilson then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. CONTINUED CASE NO. CUP 08-76 Request for an Amendment of an approved Conditional Use Permit to allow for a revised Development Plan for a television studio and office facili- ty on a 3-acre site located on the north side of Park View Drive, west of Monterey Avenue, in the PR-7,S.P. District. Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 1977. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Two Commissioner Berkey asked that it be noted for the record that he was absent from the March 1, 1977 meeting but that he had listened to the tape recording on Desert Empire Television's case and also on Biddle Development's case. Mr. Williams reviewed the request with the Commission for Case No. CUP 08-76(Amend). He explained that this case had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 1977 to allow the applicant and his architect to make specific revisions to the pro- posed Amendment of the Development Plan. Mr. Williams also showed the site plan, elevations, and floor plan for the project to the Com- mission. In summary, Mr. Williams stated that the applicant had made all the suggested revisions which had been suggested at the March 1st Planning Commission meeting and, therefore, staff was recommending ap- proval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 225. Mr. Williams then listed the major revisions to the Amendment as follows: 1. Reduce the building size to approximately 16,420 square feet. 2. Revise the design of the overall structure in terms of archi- tectural treatment and layout. 3. Re -positioning of the building on the proposed site to within twenty (20) feet of the northerly property line and the westerly property line versus the original proposal which would have placed the building to within forty (40) feet of the north property line and twenty (20) feet of the west property line. 4. Total revision of the landscape program for the project. 5. Increase the height for the front portion of the building from the original fifteen (15) foot to eighteen (18) foot. 6. Delete the proposed raised planter along Park View Drive and replace it with a meandering pedestrian/bicycle system and monument sign. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of staff at this time. Being none, he opened the Public Hearing on Case No. CUP 08-76(Amend) and asked if the applicant was present. WENDELL VEITH, 4777 Eagle Way, Palm Springs, Architect for the project, spoke to the Commission as the applicant's representative. He stated that the only thing they were proposing at this time was to increase the setback from twenty (20) feet to fifty (50) feet on the rear property line to provide turn -around space for vehicles. Mr. Veith told the Com- mission that the applicant had tried to conform to what staff and the Commission had wanted and he would be glad to answer any questions. Chairman Wilson asked staff if there would be any problem with the change in the setback as requested by the applicant's representative. Mr. Williams answered no. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any questions of the applicant at this time. Being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak to the Commission either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the project. Being no one, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing on CUP 08-76(Amend). Chairman Wilson asked the Commission to reflect on the changes that had been made and told the Commission that they had before them basically a situation where they had had some concerns a month ago and had asked the applicant and his architect to re -study the project. Further, these con- cerns seemed to have been satisfied. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 Page Three Mr. Williams told the Commission that before they acted on this matter, he wanted to advise them of two letters that had been received regard- ing this project. The first letter was from Mr. Don Gittelson, Presi- dent of Prelude Development Company. Said letter objected to use of a television office and studio in the PR-7,S.P, zone district. They based their objection on the fact that their development of some 50 con- dominium units is to be located immediately west of the proposed tele- vision studio and office facility. Mr. Williams explained that it had been pointed out at the previous Public Hearing on this Amendment that the project does indeed meet the requirements of the PR-7,S.P. District as a community -facility type use. Therefore, staff felt that the letter from Mr. Gittelson had been adequately addressed. The second letter was from the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission and requested the following: 1. No transmitting equipment be greater than 20' in height; measured from the ground. 2. That any and all units located on the roof be properly screened from view of the surrounding properties. 3. That an 8 foot concrete bicycle path be installed 4 feet from the curb along Park View Drive. Mr. Williams told the Commission that the above requests had been in- cluded in the Conditions of Approval for this project. Chairman Wilson asked if there were any additional questions or discussion. Being none, Commissioner Berkey moved for approval of this project by Planning Commission Resolution No. 225. The motion was seconded by Chairman Wilson and passed with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: READING B. CONTINUED CASE.NO. DP 7, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT INC. for M & T INC Request for a new Development Plan consisting of 193 condominium units on the remaining 33.6-acre portion of a planned residential development known as Mountainback, located in the PR-8 District on the west side of Highway 74, northerly of Portola (Carriage Trail) Avenue extended. Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 1977. Mr. Williams explained that this case had been continued from the March 1st Planning Commission meeting to address two specific matters as follows: 1. The existence of a private easement across the property for access to the property west of the Palm Valley Channel. 2. Previous history of the project regarding undergrounding of utility lines. Mr. Williams then brought the Commission up to date on this project and gave them the location, circulation, amenities, size, number of units, etc. Mr. Williams also showed the Commissioners the site plan for the project. He then explained that there is a private easement in existence. Further, the applicant is proposing as a part of his negotiations with the owner of the property west of the Palm Valley Channel, to utilize the entryway road to service that property as an alternative for access. Also, in analyzing the property to the west of the Palm Valley Channel, the City Engineer has reviewed this and has some firm recommendations and comments on that problem and also the problem of improving lire Palm Valley Storm Channel to adequately protect this property from storm runoff. C�$zi' o:ff no�n� 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE May 6, 1977 APPLICANT Desert Empire Television Corp. KMIR Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 CASE NO.: 62 MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of 3, 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED X: APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 243 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 243 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF APRIL 26, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of April 26, 1977, approving: Case No. 61MF - Final Construction Plans for a duplex for 0. M. HOMME; Case No. 62MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a television studio and offices for WENDELL VEITH for DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION; Case No. 28C - Final Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a restaurant for HENRY TAGLE; Case No. 6914F - Final Construction Drawings for a single-family sub- division for EUCLID-BALL COMPANY; WHEREAS, at this time, upon considering and receiving 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 April 26, 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 it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of April 26, 1977. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of May, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION April 26, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 62MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all require- ments of Case No. CUP 08-76 as amended and to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-D), and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval 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 a 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. Any roof mounted, exhaust, or air conditioning equipment shall be fully con- cealed from view from any public rights -of -way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. All utility service lines shall be placed underground. 6. Curb, gutter, street lights, sidewalk or approved pathways, bikeway, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. 7. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 8. Elevations are approved as shown, to be modified according to annotated changes. 9. Final construction drawings, including but not limited to revised landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, fencing, trash storage, color and material sample board, parking lot lighting, storage and loading, and sinage plans, shall be submitted for Design Review Board Process approval prior to submittal of plans for building permits. 10. The landscaping plan shall include treatment of the equestrian trail along the northerly property line. 11. Drainage area east of this office building shall be shifted northward to ac- comodate future expansion of the parking lot. l' S 4,X (6') o<zazc' 40, 3 fi cam, 2etr, a- d d ra,,4s 5 lC y� Eo aLe <2�J69�tbL*su �y1•�O-� �O �ocetC ri�2p 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. Datel (Applicant's Signature Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 31, 1977 Page Eight J9.7m•C 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 - E1 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. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1977 Page Eight Mr. Williams reviewed the case and gave the following background: When approving the recent Amendment of the General Plan and Re- development Plan for the Moller Service Industrial site, the City Council fully recognized the potential for adverse impacts upon future resort hotel areas. To ensure their proper design, the Council required that a Conditional Use Permit be granted prior to the development of the project. In order to implement this condition, the Zoning Ordinance, which is the actual legal docu- ment regulating development, should be amended to incorporate this feature. Mr. Williams also explained that the permitted uses contained in the Resolution would be amended to read: "Completely screened vehicle service and storage facilities." Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak either in FAVOR of or OPPOSED to the Amendment. Being no one, he closed the Public Hearing on Case No. ZOA 02-77, and asked the Com- mission for their feelings. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 242, with the amendment to the permitted uses as recommended by staff. Com- missioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (4-0). VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. REVIEW OF CASES ACTED ON BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT THEIR MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1977. Mr. Cipriani presented the following cases to the Commission: Case No. 61MF - Final Construction Plans for a Duplex for 0. M. HOMME; Case No. 62MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a Television Studio and Offices for WENDELL VEITH for DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION; Case No. 28C - Final Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a Restaurant for HENRY TAGLE; Case No. 69MF - Final Construction Drawings for a Single -Family Subdivision for EUCLID-BALL COMPANY Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1977 Page Nine Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review Board actions of April 26, 1977 by Resolution No. 243. Com- missioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (4-0). Mr. Williams made a recommendation that Case No. 66MF (AMERICAN WEST DEVELOPMENT - 6-Unit Apartment Complex to be located at the northwest corner of Candlewood and Panorama) be rejected as the applicant had not presented the revised plans in time for proper review. Commissioner Reading made a Minute Motion that the Planning Commission reject Case No. 66MF for the above -mentioned reason. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (4-0). X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff Mr. Williams expressed appreciation for Chairman Wilson's dedication and professionalism; explaining that this was Chairman Wilson's last night as a Planning Commissioner due to his appointment as a City Councilman. B. City Attorney I.6Sr[� C. Planning Commissioners None XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Reading moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: CHAIRMAN PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY : mkj REPORT ON: CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICANT: (u2AW?, off 1 �Innm 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: April 26, 1977 Studio Offices and Television Studio 62MF ZONE: PR-7,S.P. North Side of Park View Drive, West of Monterey Avenue WENDELL VEITH for DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans. 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: April 26, 1977 Minturn Leung 4-0(approved) 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 (15) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: On Planning Commission Agenda of May 3, 1977, at 7:00 p.m. April 26, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 62MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all require- ments of Case No. CUP 08-76 as amended and to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-D), and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval 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 a 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. Any roof mounted, exhaust, or air conditioning equipment shall be fully con- cealed from view from any public rights -of -way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. All utility service lines shall be placed underground. 6. Curb, gutter, street lights, sidewalk or approved pathways, bikeway, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. 7. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 8. Elevations are approved as shown, to be modified according to annotated changes. 9. Final construction drawings, including but not limited to revised landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, fencing, trash storage, color and material sample board, parking lot lighting, storage and loading, and sinage plans, shall be submitted for Design Review Board Process approval prior to submittal of plans for building permits. 10. The landscaping plan shall include treatment of the equestrian trail along the northerly property line. 11. Drainage area east of this office building shall be shifted northward to ac- comodate future expansion of 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 building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. Date Applicants Signature PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF APRIL 26, 1977. WHEREAS,' the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of April 26, 1977, approving: Case No. 61MF - Final Construction Plans for a duplex for 0. M. HOMME; Case No. 62MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a television studio and offices for WENDELL VEITH for DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION; Case No. 28C. - Final Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a restaurant for HENRY TABLE; Case No. 69MF - Final Construction Drawings for a single-family sub- division for EUCLID-BALL COMPANY; WHEREAS, at this time, upon considering and receiving 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 April 26, 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 it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of April 26, 1977. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 9rd day of May, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION W MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APRIL 26, 1977 5:00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. The study session of the Design Review Board began at 4:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall. The purpose of this study session was to review the cases on the agenda. Members Present: Bill Hobbs George Minturn Eric Johnson Bernie Leung Ralph Cipriani (for Paul Williams) Members Absent: Frank Urrutia, Jim Hill Others Present: Sam Freed After a one half hour study session, the meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. Mr. Freed informed the Board that the Minutes of their April 12, 1977 meeting would be reviewed at the next meeting. 2. CASE NO. 61MF - 0. M. HOMME Request for approval of final construction plans for a duplex to be located at the northeast corner of Pitahaya and Shadow Mountain Drive. Applicant present. The discussion of the case centered around the landscaping. The Board requested that the applicant provide additional low shrubs adjacent to the structure. Mr. Johnson suggested several varieties of plants that might accomplish the intended purpose. The applicant assured the Board that he intended to provide additional plants on the site; that those indicated on the plan were only the minimum he intended to use. A motion was made by Mr. Leung and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the final plans be approved subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Min - turn, Johnson, Leung). 3. CASE NO. 62MF WENDELL VEITH for DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a television studio and offices to be located on the north side of Park View Drive, west of Monterey Avenue. Applicant present. The applicant was requested to provide trees south of the structure in order to integrate this area with the entire site. The drainage pond in the rear was then discussed with the applicant indicating that the pond was intended to serve as an architectural focus. Even though there will seldom be water in the pond, it will have an attractive appearance as it will be lined with gravel and rocks. The Board indicated that they were pleased with the way in which the overall plan had been up- graded. A motion was made by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Leung that the pre- liminary site, floor, and elevation plans be approved subject to compli- ance with conditions. Motion carried 4-O(Hobbs, Minturn, Johnson, Leung). 4. CASE NO. 28C, HENRY TAGLE Request for approval of final construction plans for a restaurant to be located at the northwest corner of De Anza Way and Palm Desert Drive. Discussion of the case focused on the location of the project, parking, and the basic layout. Staff indicated that the applicant has a variance for parking and setback requirements. The Board added Condition No. 17 which requires that the applicant relocate the trash.enclosure to a more accessible location. Minutes Palm Desert Design Review Board April 26, 1977 4. Case No. 28C (continued) It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the final construction plans be approved subject to compliance with conditions, including the addition of Condition No. 17. Motion carried 4-0(Hobbs, Leung, Johnson, Minturn). 5. CASE NO. 45C. BANK OF AMERICA This case was deleted from the agenda as the applicant had not submitted the revised plans which were to be reviewed. 6. CASE NO. 69MF, EUCLID-BALL COMPANY Request for approval of final construction drawings for ten single- family residences to be constructed in Tract 4980. Applicant present. Mr. Hobbs asked the applicant why he had opposed the height of the pads originally required by the Board. The applicant responded by saying that the cost would have been substantial and that there was a problem at the time as to where the displaced soil would have been placed. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the final plans be approved subject to compliance with conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Johnson, Minturn, Leung). 7. CASE NO. 68MF, PALM DESERT VENTURE, LTD. Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a 46-unit condominium project to be located east of San Luis Rey and Juni- per. Representative of applicant present. The applicant's representative was informed by the Board that the proposed circulation element would require revisions in order to assure adequate fire and health protection. In addition, a reconfiguration of the dwelling units would be required to provide larger rear yards for units on Juniper. The applicant's representative was commended for having provided such a fine plan considering the constraints involved with the nature of the site. Staff pointed out to the DRB that the Development Plan for the project would be pre- sented to the Planning Commission on May 3, 1977 so that the DRB would undoubtedly be reviewing the project once again in the future. The DRB requested that the staff present the following DRB findings to the Planning Commission: 1) The circulation element should be given strong consideration by the Planning Commission. 2) The Planning Commission should consider a possible reduction in the number of permitted units and/or a reconfiguration of the units. 8. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. RALPH J. CIPR ANI, ASS CIATE PLANNER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA mi REPORT ON 14 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW -BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: February 22, 1977 Studio Offices and Television Studio for KMIR-TV CASE NO.: 62MF ZONE: PR-7,S.P. LOCATION: North side of Park View Drive, west of Monterey Avenue APPLICANT: Wendell Veith for Desert Empire Television Corporation NATURE OT APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB rejects this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: February 22, 1977 Motion Made By: Hobbs Seconded By: Leung - Vote: Rejected 5-0 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.) See'attached minutes STATE COMMENTS: See attached minutes r 0 C bruary 22, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 62MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all requirements of Case No. CUP 08-76 as amended and to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A-D), and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval 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 a 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. 5. All utility service lines shall be placed underground. 6. Curb, gutter, street lights, sidewalk or approved pathways, bikeway, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with City Standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. The I d-Gaping plan as shown 7 Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. �. M. Elevations are approved as shown, to be modified according to annotated changes. The applicant sha ro ofi forty-nine (49) parking spaces, including sev n ed spaces. vt Final construction drawings, including but not limited to revised land- scaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, fencing, trash storage, color and material sample board, parking lot lighting, storage and loading, and signage plans, shall be submitted for Design Review Board Process approval prior to submittal of plans for building permits. The landscaping plan shall include treatment of the equestrian trail along the northerly property line. A b�' 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. ate) (Applicant's Signature MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1977 1. The Study Session began at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall. Members Present: George Minturn, Eric Johnson, Bill Hobbs, Frank Urrutia, and Bernard Leung Staff Present: Sam Freed The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. to review cases. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the Design Review Board minutes of February 8, 1977, be approved as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 2. CASE NO. 58MF - SHADOW MOUNTAIN GOLF CLUB Amendment of conditions approved on February 8th for a golf cart storage building to be located at the Shadow Mountain Golf Club. Norm Granger represented the applicant. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that a second vehicle door be added to the building; also that Condition No. 6 read: "The building shall be shifted to the north to permit the maxi- mum landscape area south of the building, consistent with the required turning radius at the northwest corner of the building.". The motion carried 5-0. 3. CASE NO. 49C - KROMMENHOEK for SAN DIEGO FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN Request for preliminary approval of site, elevation, floor and signage plans and color/material sample board for a new San Diego Federal Savings and Loan office to be located.south of Highway 111 and west of San Pablo extended. Bill Krommenhoek, architect, represented the applicant. The Design Review Board had several major concerns with the project: a. Because of the discontinuance of the reverse loop concept as a part of the Redevelopment Plan, customers would be forced to drive to Lupine and then east along the frontage road to reach the office. There would not be any convenient access from San Pablo extended. To alleviate this situation, the Design Review Board suggested that the building be reversed (north to south) with the parking area near the southerly end of the project site. As proposed, the entrances would be too far removed from the site. b. To integrate the building into the adjacent development, the DRB directed that a tan stucco color or one similar to the E1 Paseo Square be used. The applicant could retain the blue tile. c. The DRB directed that the signage plan be revised to conform to the provisions of the new Sign Ordinance. Bill Krommenhoek was concerned with the suggested site plan changes since this would place the drive -up teller windows toward Highway 111. He sug- gested that the City Engineer review the plans during the DRB process to avoid future delays and misunderstandings. The DRB advised him that a regular flagpole would be acceptable instead of the nautical design proposed. The DRB directed the staff to send all information necessary to complete the project, including the latest sign ordinance, the proposed site plan on the Redevelopment project, the legal. documents related to the parking easement and agreement on future assessment districts, and the dates of future DRB meetings to Mr. Krommenhoek. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn to continue Case No. 49C to the DRB meeting of March 8, 1977. Motion carried 5-0. February 22. 1977 Pa£e One Minutes Palm Desert Design Review Board February 22, 1977 4. CASE NO. 30C - GEORGE RITTER for DeVOE Request for approval of final construction plans for furniture store on the south side of Highway 111, between Sage Lane and Highway 74. George Ritter present. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the plans be approved with the following modifications: a. The parking layout and building size shall be compatible with the proposed Redevelopment Plan. b. A pedestrian access opening shall be provided on the north side of the trash enclosure. Gates shall be added to the east wall of the enclosure. c. A landscape area shall be reserved adjacent to the rear of the building but no plants shall be installed. Motion carried 5-0. 5. CASE N0. 50C - GEORGE RITTER for DR. CRAINE Review of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans and color sample board for a commercial office/retail building on the south side of E1 Paseo west of Lantana extended. George Ritter present. It was moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the preliminary plans be approved subject to the attached conditions with the following changes: a. Delete Condition No. 9 b. Revision of Condition No. 14 - "All projections into the public right-of-way shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and a five (5) foot setback shall be maintained for all bearing walls and columns along the E1 Paseo frontage. c. In Condition No. 15, change "five (5) feet" to "six (6) feet". d. Delete Condition No. 16 Motion carried 5-0. 6. CASE NO. 62MF - DESERT EMPIRE TELEVISION CORPORATION - KMIR-TV. Request for preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a television studio and office complex on the north side of Park View Drive between Monterey and Fairhaven. The DRB was concerned with.the relationship between the building height and its distance from adjacent property lines. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Leung that the plans be rejected for non-compliance to the mandatory findings of the DRB ordinance, specifically: that the proposed site plan would impair the desirability of development of the interior lot area and that the building location would unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments. It was suggested that the applicant consider: a. Locating buildings to the rear of the subject property. b. Locating access road along east edge of parcel. c. Reversing building layout (entrance on east) to more evenly balance building and sideyard landscaping. Motion carried 5-0 Pare Two Minutes Palm Desert Design Review Board February 22, 1977 7. CASE NO. 56MF - JIM BELKNAP Request for final construction plans for a 7-unit apartment complex on the east side of Ocotillo Drive, between Tumbleweed and Verba Santa. Applicant and Eric Loyer (architect) were present. The.applicant submitted a copy of the recorded tract map indicating the use of Lot V for access purposes. The DRB changed several proposed plants on the landscape plan from Eleagnus Pungens to Carissa Tuttlei. A cluster of 3 Sterculia Diversifolia were added in front of the rear of Building B adja- cent to the street. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the plans be approved subject to 9 conditions and the understanding that elevations and colors would be changed for Case No. 57MF adjacent to Highway 74. Motion carried 5-0. 8. CASE NO. 60MF - F. S. 6 L. INDUSTRIES Review of final construction plans for an 8-unit apartment complex west of Portola and south of Flagstone Lane. Al Kuri, applicant, was present. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the plans be approved with the following changes: a. Condition No. 4, delete the first sentence. b. Condition No. 6, delete "sidewalk or approved pathways" since this previously was deleted from Variance 03-76. c. Condition No. 14, delete the Italian Cyprus from the landscape plan and replace with two 24-inch box trees per lot, using Rhus Lancia, Brazilian Pepper, or African Sumac. Motion carried 5-0. 9. CASE NO. 61MF - 0. M. HOMME Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a duplex at the northeast corner of Pitahaya and Shadow Mountain Drive. Mike Homme was present. It was moved by Mr. Leung and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the plans be approved, with the following changes: a. Condition No. 6, delete "sidewalk or approved pathway". b. Add Condition No. 10, "This approval shall be invalid unless a modified Development Plan is adopted.". c. Add Condition No. 11, ''An additional specimen -size tree shall be added near the driveway in front of each dwelling unit. Motion approved 5-0 10. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _Z� ?AA946� uIAM FREED, ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA SF/mj 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS' GUIDE TO PROCEDURES For your convenience, the Application Form used by the Department incorporates data for submitting various types of applications. Only the items pertaining to a specific application(s) are to be completed. Please consult a staff mem- ber for information or assistance in determining specific application(s) required. FILING The applicant should discuss his proposal with the Planning staff to determine PROCEDURE: whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other requirements. ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION PLANNED DISTRICT -PD Provides detailed information on new develop - DEVELOPMENT PLAN ment in the Planned Residential (PR), Planned Commercial (PC), or Planned Industrial (PI) (Planning Commission and Council zones. Plan is adopted by Council as an Action Required) Ordinance. Application Fee: PR Zone with C/Z request $450 + $2 DU - $1,000 Max. No C/Z re- quest $325 + $2 DU - $1,000 Max; PC or PI Zone with C/Z request $650 without C/Z request $550. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -CUP Where certain uses may create potential prob- lems, the Palm Desert Municipal Code provides (Planning Commission Action Required; that conditional use permits shall be required Council May Request Review) "so that they may be located properly with re- spect to the objectives of the zoning requla- Lions." Application Fee: A, RE, R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, SI, P & OS zones - one acre or less $140, one acre plus $250 + $10/acre. D, S, N, SP, H overlays - same unless base district requires CUP + 50%. The Palm Desert Municipal Code provides for an ADJUSTMENT -ADJ. adjustment to the terms of the zoning ordinance to allow minor reductions in yard setbacks or (Approval of Zoning Administrator parking requirements. Required) Application Fee - $30 A variance from the terms of the zoning ordin- VARIANCE -VAR. ante may be obtained only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the prop - (Planning Commission Action Required: erty, including size, shape, or topography, the Council May Request Review) strict application of the Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Application Fee: $50 residential lot; $150 other. ira ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION CHANGE OF ZONE - C/Z A change of zone request may be initiated by the owner or authorized agent of the owner of property. (Planning Commission and All zoning designations must be in conformance to the Council Action Required) General Plan or any specific plan for that area. Application Fee - $325 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA Amendments of these plans are processed in confor- REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT RPA mance to State Law and the ordinances and resolutions SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SPA of the City of Palm Desert. Application Fee - $500 (Planning Commission and Council Action Required. Redevelopment Agency Action Required.) TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TUP To regulate temporary uses such as art sales, Christ- mas tree sales, garage sales, subdivision sales offict (Approval of Zoning and model homes so that they will not be detrimental Administrator Required) to surrounding property. Application Fee - $10 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT HOP To regulate the use of business activities in resi- dential neighborhoods. (Approval'of Zoning Application Fee - $0 Administrator Required) CERTIFICATE OF USE CRT A use certificate insures that each new or expanded use of a structure or site complies with all appli- (Approval of Zoning cable provisions of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Administrator Required) Application Fee - $0 SIGN PERMIT S Regulates the size, color, and location of signs throughout the City. No sign may -be erected with - (Approval of Planning Division out an approved sign permit. Staff Required; Design Review Application Fee - Staff Review $0 - Less than $100 in value Board/ Planning Commission Action 1 $10 - $100 - $500 in va: Required for Large Signs - See DRB &•PC DRB Process) Review $15 TIME EXTENSION Where permits or approvals have been granted for a specific time period, time extensions may be granted (Depending on use, may require by the appropriate agency or body. approval of Zoning Administrator, Application Fee $50, if public hearing required. Planning Commission or City Council) AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Assures flexibility of the City's regulatory process PLAN, CUP, VARIANCE, PLOT PLAN due to unforeseen problems. APPROVAL Application Fee - $50, if public hearing required. (Approving body varies with nature of request) Lue ACTION REQUESTED GENERA (FORMATION Review of landscaping, architecture, colors and mater- DRB PROCESS SF MF ials, and other zoning requirements prior to submit- C tal for a building permit. (Requires approval of Application Fee - Single fam Planning Division staff or Other Design Review Board and Planning Commission) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PM To regulate the subdivision of property involving 4 or less parcels. (Review by Planning Commission ) Application Fee - $50 FINAL PARCEL MAP Final adoption of plans and performance bonds on re- quired subdivision improvements. (Approved by City Council) Application Fee - $100 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TR To regulate the subdivision of property involving 5 or more parcels. (Review by Planning Commission Application Fee $250 + $3.50 per Lot + $100 + $1.50 and City Council) per Lot (FC) FINAL TRACT MAP Final adoption of plans and performance bonds on re- quired subdivision improvements. (Approved by City Council) Application Fee $100 + $6.00 per Lot. REVISED TENTATIVE MAP To provide for flexibility in the subdivision process necessitated by unforeseen circumstances. (Review by Director of Application Fee - $50 + $2.50 per add. Lot. Environmental Services, may be reviewed by Planning Commission) APPEALS - ALL TYPES APL. The Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes the appeal process for various types of projects to insure maxi - (Appeal agency based upon mum consideration of individual applications. nature of project) Application Fee - $50, if public hearing required. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 re- quires an assessment of the impacts of proposed project (Submit to Planning Division Staff) which require a discretionary approval by the City. Application Fee - $30. EIR REVIEW Detailed environmental analysis of proposed impacts resulting from a project which may have adverse en - (Requires Planning Commission vironmental consequences. Action, may require City Council Application Fee - $550. Action) OTHER (ZF$4r Zr (Xff IrDcD=o320fb 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES GENERAL INFORMATION (1) MEETINGS: a) City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane. b) Planning Commission meetings are held on Tuesday, nine (9) days prior to each Council meeting, also at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. c) The Design Review Board convenes on Tuesday, a week before the Planning Commission, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers. (2) PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearings are held when the City considers requests for a change of zone, variance, condi- tional use permit, general plan amendment, etc. Legal notices for these hearings are published in the Palm Desert Post at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Public hearing items before the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency are published in the Desert Sun. (3) APPEALS: Where the Zoning Ordinance provides for appeal to the City Council or Planning commission, the appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision by filing an application of appeal with the Director of Environmental Services. (4) FEES: All required fees are listed in the Fee Schedule, as approved by the City Council. (5) BUILDING PERMITS: Building permits are issued by the Department of Building and Safety and.are .required before any new construction, re -construction, plumbing, mechanical work is commenced. (6) BUSINESS LICENSE: Prior to engaging in an enterprise for profit, zoning and building code clearance for the proposed use is required and a city business license obtained. Ap- plication should be made to the Code Enforcement Supervisor. (7) PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS: Many parcels of land in the City of Palm Desert are subject to private covenants, conditions, and deed restrictions which may conflict with the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is responsible for resolving conflicts with deed restriction requirements. CITY ( PALM DESERT 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR _...._ PALM DESERT CA. 92260 (714)546-0611 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APP. NO. DATE REC. (DD NOr WR/rE /N rH/S SPACE) APPLICANT (Please print) 17y:.6erv-r E►Mei Rls T�,_ Doze - Y mt rz-TU (NAM E) (Mailing address) �1! S nRI I)L-yS . C�l�►'FOR-lei I (Telephone) la q z UP'Z — ( city ) State (Zip -Code) Request:(describe speciffiiccnna�turree off approval requested) Property Description: 3 A.�R� Loc.,o►-r�D NQR-�fl-+r/ �-aF � aD.(�ac-c.�T1" 7a ?ar v. o ► ew l n- l J c p4P P")S- (0 34-' jA) EAwT07Uyl e F T" Assessor's Porcei No. Existing Zoning at43 (PSI - 1.0)0 -d IL 4 - S.P. ISO? 0 (ozl-2qo-ol-i Existing Gen. Pion Designation Property Owner Authorization: The undersigns states that hey are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give - outhoriza ' f t o filing o f is application. Signature Date Agreement Absolving the City of Palm Des t Fall liobilities relative to any Deed Restrictions. ' I DO BY MY SIGNATURE HIS GREEMENT, solve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regardiig any deed r stricti ns at may be applicable to the property described herein. — — -7 1 Signature Date Applicants Signature - Signature Date (for staff use only) ENVIRONMENTAL S T S Acospfed by: ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ij r !w-1 do ❑ CATEGORICA EXEMPTION G i ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION Jt No. AS N ❑ OTHER Reference Case No. NOTE: APPLICANT MUST ALSO COMPLETE RELATED SUPFLEMENTAL APPLICATION. APPLICANT MUST ALSO COMPLETE RELATED SUPFLEMENTAL APPLICATION. CITY I PALM DESERT 43475 PRICKLY PEAR PALM DESERT CA. 92260 17141346-0611 ,&TTMgC4..9lJLYQI'SC_] DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APP. NO. DATE REC. (DD NOT WRyr£ IN WS SPACE) APPLICANT (Please print) (NAM E) (Mailing address) (Telephone) (City) State (Zip -Code) Request:( describe specific nature of approval requested) Property Description: Assessors Parcel No. Existing Zoning Existing Gen. Plan Designation Property Owner Authorization: Ins underslgnea states tnai they are the owner authorization for the filing of this application. re the property Date and hereby give Agreement Absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to any Deed Restrictions. DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, absolve the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be oppiicableto the property described herein. Signature Date Applicants Signature Signature Date (for staff use only) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Accepted by: ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICA EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE o. ❑ OTHER N NOTE: APPLICANT MUST ALSO COMPLETE RELATED SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION. Reference Case No. CITY OF PALM DESERT SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review of: STAFF USE ONLY: CASE NO. ---r DATE ACTOR (Staff, D.R.B_, P.C., or C.C. ACTION APPLICANT NOTIFIED 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. DEPARTMENT DESIGN ( PLANNING APPLICATION OF ENVIRON- REVIEW (—\ COMMISSION MENTAL BOARD L� (APPROVES OR SERVICES (ADVISORY) DENIES PROJECT) STAFF INTERIOR REMODELS, MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS n DEPARTMENT t� BUILDING AND r`CONSTRUCI SAFETY L�/ ION Department of Environmental Services Form 1: Approved by Planning Commission on Page Two City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application rorm DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES and similar projects require 2-4 working days before they may. be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. MULTI -FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, and other projects that must be reviewed by the D.R.B. and Planning Commission usually require 10-20 days. In order to facilitate processing, the applicant or a designated representative should attend the review hearings to answer questions which may arise regarding the project. MANDATORY FINDINGS: No project may be approved unless: - The proposed development conforms to any legally adopted development standards. - 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 impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighbor- hood; and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.' - The design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the har- monious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Zoning Or- dinance and the adopted General Plan of the City. - 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. - The proposed use conforms to all the requirements of the zone in which it is located and all other applicable requirements. - The overall development of the land shall be designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Each project will be reviewed on the basis of its conformance to the following adopted development standards. In those areas determined by the D.R.B. to be "unacceptable", it is the responsibility of the applicant to redesign that por- tion of the project. I. TERRAIN CONTROL STANDARDS UNACCEPTABLE A. Terrain and soils shall be structurally stable and suitable for development. Page Three City of Palm Desert $upplemental Application rm DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS I. TERRAIN CONTROL STANDARDS (continued) UNACCEPTABLE B. (Water Erosion) Property to be developed shall be protected against drainage runoff from adjacent properties. C. (Water Erosion) Drainage runoff produced by property and development therein shall be contained on the property or allowed to drain onto adjacent public streets or allowed to drain by other City approved means. D. (Wind Erosion) Property to be developed shall be protected against wind carried deposits from adjacent areas. E. (Wind Erosion) Property to be developed shall, upon com- pletion, produce no appreciable wind carried deposits on adjacent properties. Suitable soil stabilization shall be provided. F. Curb and gutters shall be provided where required to control and regulate drainage. II. ACCESS & CIRCULATION STANDARDS A. Safe & convenient vehicle access to property and development therein shall be provided. B. Safe and convenient pedestrian access to property and development therein shall be provided. C. Circulation plans (auto, bicycle, and pedestrian) shall conform to municipally developed circulation plans for the vicinity and immediate area, III. SITE PLANNING STANDARDS A. Site Planning shall occur in a manner which minimizes obstruc- tion of scenic views from adjacent properties. B. Site Planning shall be compatible with existing terrain. C. Site Planning shall occur in a manner which does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the detriment of adjacent properties. D. Site Planning shall occur in a manner in which asphalt or concrete is minimized. E. Avoid unnecessary impediments for handicapped persons. Page Four City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application corm DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS UNACCEPTABLE IV. UTILITY & EQUIPMENT STANDARDS A. All service utility lines shall be placed underground. B. All control panels, vaults and necessary equipment shall be architecturally screened or landscaped or other- wise concealed from public view. C. All air conditioning and ventilation equipment shall be located and screened in a manner to prevent exposure to public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. V. VEHICLE PARKING STANDARDS A. Off-street parking should be located in proximity to facilities) it serves. B. Parking areas should be screened from view wherever possible by means of berms, garden walls and landscaping. C. Parking areas shall be shaded where practical. D. Carports for apartment developments shall not front onto a public right-of-way. E, Garages should be encouraged not to front onto a public right-of-way. F. All parking areas for recreational and accessory vehicles and trailers shall be architecturally screened or landscaped or otherwise concealed from public view. G. Adequate handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. VI. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS A. A singular architectural theme shall be applied to a given structure or complex. (including facade architecture). B. Architectural design shall be applied to entire structure or complex rather than just to those sides exposed to public view. C. Architectural design shall be appropriate to the climatic conditions of the desert area and shall be done in a manner which minimizes the consumption of energy required for heating and cooling. D. Entrances shall include appropriate lighting and identification. E. Architectural design shall employ materials and colors which are compatible and complementary to the desert area. Page Five City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application Form DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS UNACCEPTABLE VI. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS (continued) F. Architectural design shall incorporate provisions for signage (if applicable) as an integrated part of the overall design. G. Architecture and landscaping shall be co-ordinated and com- plementary. H, All air conditioning, exhaust, and ventilation, accessory mechanical and electrical equipment and control panels shall be located and screened in a manner to prevent exposure to. public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. VII. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS A, Landscaping shall be an integral part of the site planning and architectural design on all projects. B. Provisions for the adequate maintenance and irrigation of landscaping shall be made through the use of underground irrigation systems. C. Landscaping, walls and fences shall not create unsafe conditions along public rights -of -way, VIII. LIGHTING, IDENTIFICATION & SIGNAGE STANDARDS A. Signage shall be architecturally integrated with the structure involved. B. Signage shall be of colors compatible and complementary to the structure it relates to and to other development in its surroundings. C. No lighting of signage shall exceed an output of 10 candle- power at 10 feet, D, Signage for commercial uses shall be for identification pur- poses only. IX. FENCING, SCREENING & ENCLOSURE STANDARDS A. Materials and colors of fences and walls shall be compatible and complementary to the structures with which they relate. B. Fences, walls, and enclosures shall be handled as an integrated part of the architecture and landscaping. C. Outside service and storage areas, where permitted, shall be enclosed and screened. Page Six City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application Form DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS UNACCEPTABLE IX. FENCING, SCREENING & ENCLOSURE STANDARDS (continued) D. Fences and walls shall not obstruct line -of -sight along public rights -of -way. X. SERVICE AREA STANDARDS A. Service areas shall be designed and constructed of materials and colors which are compatible and complementary to the structures of complexes they serve. B. Service areas shall be located in a manner which does not adversely affect adjacent properties. C. Service areas shall be screened and/or enclosed to prevent their exposure to public rights -of -way and adjacent pro- perties. Page Seven City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application Form DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS An "APPLICATION PACKAGE" shall contain: - The completed Application Form. - The appropriate fee as required by the attached Fee Schedule. - Photographs of the site and adjacent properties, particularly adjacent buildings, (At the request of the Staff) - Three (3) complete sets of plans for staff reviewed cases or six (6) complete sets for all others. The "PLANS" shall consist of the following: I. General Information Block (to include:) A. Street, block number, tract B. County Assessor's parcel number (9 digits) C. Legal description of property D. Owner's name, address, and phone number E. Designer's name, address, and phone number F. Any special information or conditions pertaining to the site or to the plans II, Vicinity Map (no scale) A. Major street names B. Other reference points and landmarks III. Site Analysis & Preliminary Drainage & Gradin (to scale) to include: A. North arrow B. Scale C, General drainage pattern of area to include site and adjacent properties within 100' (use arrows to show drainage flow to and from site). D. Existing contour lines including property corners E. Proposed locations of structures and drives F. Elevations of pads and finished floors G. Finished grades H. Elevations of existing street centerline I. Retaining walls (where applicable) J. Perimeter walls and fences which affect drainage Page Eight City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application Form DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS IV. Plot Plan (to scale & sufficient size to include:) A. Scale B. North arrow C. Property lines D. Lot dimensions E. Public rights -of -way with existing and proposed dimensions (include street names) F. Existing or proposed curb lines G. Any and all easements H. All utility line locations (gas, electric, cable, water, and sewer) I. Adjacent property uses (showing approximate location of structures and other pertinent features) J. Major vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access points to and from site (use arrows of different widths to show direction and intensity of use) K. Setback areas L. All existing and proposed structures M. Interior vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation patterns (if applicable) N. Off-street parking (to include spaces, regulatory devices, provisions for accessory vehicle storage where applicable, etc.) 0. Parking areas for bicycles and carts (if applicable) P. Service areas and facilities to include: (1) trash storage areas (2) mail delivery boxes (3) loading areas Q. Perimeter fencing and screening R. Proposed sign locations (if applicable) V. Information Block (if applicable) to include: A. Acreage and square footage calculations B, Ratio of structures to total land area C, Ratio of parking spaces to building square footage D. Parking requirements provided E. Ratio of landscaping to total land area F. Any specific information of special conditions particularly relevant to the project VI. Elevations of all Sides of all Structures (to scale and with dimensions Page Nine City of Palm Desert Supplemental Applicatioi rm DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS VII. Elevations of Signs (if applicable) VIII. -Elevations of Fencing, Perimeter Screening and Walled Areas e i IX Used and Chart Showing Exact One set of plans shall show elevations accurately colored to depict actual appearance of proposed structures or material board, X. Floor Plans of all structures (to scale) with dimensions XI. Landscape, Irrigation, and Exterior Lighting Plan (to include:) A. Landscaping, showing location of all trees, shrubs, plants, and ground cover in those areas subject to public view B. Variety and size of vegetation shall be noted C, Irrigation provisions for maintaining aforementioned landscaping D. Lighting provisions for lighting driveways, entrances, yards, premises, parking areas, etc. E. Perimeter treatment of property (fences, wall, vegetation screens, etc.) F. Street furniture and ornamentation, if applicable, (to include:) 1) rock outercroppings 2) benches 3) fountains and waterscapes plot plan 4) newspaper stands 5) statues 6) etc. �a