Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75MF SILVER SPUR IRONWOOD TRACT 5565MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 28, 1979 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 2:35 P.M. after a 2 hour study session. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Eric Johnson Phyllis Jackson Bernie Leung Vern Barton Rick Holden Al Cook Charles Martin None Stan Sawa Murrel Crump The Board reviewed the minutes of August 7, 1979. On Case No. 375SA, the Board modified revision nos. 1 and 2. No. 1 was changed to read as follows: If the sign is moved to the north, the height from the bottom of the sign to finished grade of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 5 ft. Revision no. 2 was modified to read as follows: The sign may be moved to the north so it is located between parking spaces. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Leung, to approve the minutes of August 7, 1979, as amended above; carried 4-0-4 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON WITH HOLDEN, COOK AND MARTIN ABSTAINING). Minute motion approving cases found acceptable at the Design Review Board session - None. III. CASES: Case No. 75MF (Tract 5565, Phase 4 and 5) - Ironwood Country Club, 0 Woodward Dike - Final landscaping plans for Phase 4 and 5 which are presently under construction; applicant was present. Staff indicated three changes which the Board approved this item subject to the following revisions: I. Delete T-10 and replace with Pinus Mondell. 2. Delete use of Eucalyptus between buildings and replace with Bottle Tree. 3. Utilize dwarf citrus trees in unit patio locations. Carried 7-0 (JOHNSON, JACKSON, LEUNG, BARTON, HOLDEN, COOK, MARTIN) It was also suggested by Mr. Johnson that the applicants utilize as much grass as possible in areas where ground cover is presently indicated. This would ease maintenance of the landscaped areas. Case No. 72C (Amended) - Robert Ricciardi, AIA - Approval of men ment to a ow patio wall for building under construction; applicant was present. Staff discussed the problems associated with the construction of the proposed fence as formulated by the Design Review Board during study session. The Board felt that because of the lack of protection from cars backing up, extreme sun exposure, loss of landscaping, and poor aesthetic appeal, that the request was not acceptable. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION CASE NO.: 75MF LOCATION: South side of Irontree Drive between Mariposa Drive and Quercus Lane. ZONE: PR-7 APPLICANT: Ironwood Country Club - C/O Woodward Dike NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final landscaping plans of Phase 4 and 5 which are presently under construction. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Upon reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the Design Review Board Approved _ this project, subject to revisions. Date of Action: August 28, 1979 Vote: 7-0 (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 COMUENTS: See attached minutes. IDA ITEM NO. III, A-1 DATE August 28, 1979 DESIGN! REVIEW BOARD 75 MF CASE NO. (Tract 5565, Phase 4 & 5) APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) Ironwood Country Club, C/O Woodward Dike 580 Broadway, Suite 218, Laguna Beach, California 92651 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT Approval of final landscaping plans of Phase 4 and 5 which are presently under construction. LOCATION South side of Irontree Drive between Mariposa Drive and Quercus Lane. ZONE PR-7 Applicants have submitted the final landscaping and irrigation plans for Phase 4 and 5 which are presently under construction. AFF RECOMMENDATION: Determine acceptability of final landscaping plans. Woodward Dike Landscape Architects and PIS s 580 Broadway. Suite 218 Laguna Beach, California 92651 714 494-7095 j- .1 wo '.- LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: August 16, 1979 To: City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Stanley Sawa, Planning Department Project Number: Project Name: We are: enclosing ❑ Sending under separate cover ❑ Sending via special delivery ❑ Sending via messenger U. )Prints ❑ Other F FAV For your: ❑ Information X)U Approval ❑ Information and return ❑ Necessary action ❑ Review and comments ❑ File Description: (2) Complete Sets of Landscape Architectural Construction Documents Sheets L-1 through L-15 Hereby submitted for your final approval Comments: Please notify our office immediately if items do not correspond with above description. Sincerely, Woodward Dike Landscape Architects and Planners Landscape Architect MINUTES PALM DESERT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY - JULY 12, 1977 5:30 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. The Study Session of the Design Review Board. began at 4:30 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: Others Present: Bill Hobbs Eric Johnson Frank Urrutia Ralph Cipriani Sam Freed (for Paul Williams) After a one -hour study session, the meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the minutes,of the previous meeting of June 21, 1977 be approved as written. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Johnson, Cipriani, Urrutia). 2. CASE NO. 35MF, NOE-JACK DEVELOPERS, APPLICANT Request for approval of a landscaping plan for an apartment complex to be located on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the case be continued to the July 26th meeting due to the lack of qualified voting members present. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Johnson, Cipriani, Urrutia). NO. 75MF, SILVER SPUR ASSOC., APPLI Request for approval of a preliminary landscaping plan for a 217-unit condo- minium project to be located at Ironwood Country Club. A motion was made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Hobbs that the plans be approved as a preliminary landscaping plan. Motion carried 4-0 (Johnson, Hobbs, Urrutia, Cipriani). 4. CASE NO. 55C, AL KURI, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a commercial structure to be located on the north side of E1 Paseo, west of Sage Lane. Applicant present. Mr. Kuri presented a new set of plans to the Board which reflect the revisions requested previously by the Board and those revisions requested by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association. The Board indicated that they believed it would be more beneficial to have the name of the building on the front of the structure rather than the names of the tenants. In addition to the name of the building on both the front and rear of the structure, the applicant will be permitted to place 4 hanging tenant signs in the interior courtyard, one in front of each establishment or office. Final sign plans will have to be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Cipriani that the preliminary site, floor and elevation plans be approved with the Change of Condition #9 which now approves the concept of the signs but requires final approval of the sign program at a future date. Motion carried 4-0 (Hobbs, Cipriani, Urrutia, Johnson). 5. CASE NO. 54, J. RODNEY BARTOW, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a commercial structure to be located on the north side of E1 Paseo, west of Lupine. Applicant present. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 264 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROV- ING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF JULY 12, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of July 12, 1977, approving: Case No. 75MF - Preliminary landscaping plan for a 217-unit condominium project for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES; Case No. 55C - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a commerical structure for AL KURI; Case No. 56C - Preliminary site, grading and landscaping for an open storage area for POLL MOLLER; Case No. 82MF - Preliminary floor and elevations for a 48-unit condominium project for PORTOLA VILLAGE; Case No. 51C - Final construction drawings for a commerical complex for HMS PLAZA WEST; 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 July 12, 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 July 12, 1977, except Case No. 79MF is hereby continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 2, 1977, Condition No. 12 of Case No. 82MF is hereby deleted and change Condition No. 18 of Case No. 51C to read as follows: A side- .w•alk six (6) feet in width in addition to a landscaped berm a minimum of 3 feet in height shall be installed along Larrea Street. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of July, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, BERKEY, SNYDER, READING NOES: NONE ABSENT: KRYDER ABSTAIN: NONE GEORG,. BERKEY, Chairm n PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING "COMMISSION ACTION DATE July 21, 1977 APPLICANT Silver Spur Assoc. P.'0. Box 1727 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 CASE No.: 75NF (Preliminary Landscape Plan The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of CONTINUED DENIED XXX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 264 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE'WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. N PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC BEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environment; Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days bf the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COPXISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File � . w Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 20, 1977 Page Three VIII. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) B. C.V.C.W.D. Water Line Extension (Continued) Commissioner Snyder spoke about the terrible conditions of the streets in the City after the water district has put in the sewers and that the streets are not put back in their original condition once the work is completed. Mr. Cook spoke about the problem noting that he and Mr. Lowell Weeks of the water district have had several conferences on the problem and that he felt that the problem would soon be resolved. Commissioner Kelly noted that the water district is responsible for the streets and should have to redo them if not done right. Mr. Cook indicated that the water district is responsible for leaving the streets in the same condition as they found them and for there repair for one year after the initial work. He also noted that the water district could be taken to court if the problem was not solved. Mr. Cook offered to take the Commissioners on a tour of the City to review the problem areas. Some discussion followed with regard to the difference between emergency and routine repair of streets and how the water district determines such. Chairman Berkey asked for a motion at this time. Commissioner Kelly moved that the Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 263 finding that the proposed project is in conformance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan, seconded by Commissioner Reading; carried unanimously (4-0). THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 2:05 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 2:10 P.M. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS iewed the cases for the Commission. Case No. 75MF1 it er Spur Assoc., request for approval of a preliminary landscaping pl or a 217-unit condominium project to be located at ry Club. Case No. 55C, Al Kuri, preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a commercial structure to be located on the north side of E1 Paseo, west of Sage Lane. It was noted that the Design Review Board had requested several modifications which the applicant had made and the Palm Desert Property Owners Association had approved the project. In responce to one of the Commissioners question regarding parking Mr. Cipriani indicated that the plans showed more than the required amount of parking. Finally the project has 13 standard conditions of approval. Case No. 56C, Poul S. Moller, request for approval of preliminary site, grading and landscaping for an open storage area to be located north of 44th Avenue and 250 feet west of Painter's Path. There was discussion in regard to the drainage of water and the direction it would flow. The City Engineer indicated it would flow east across adjoining property until the property is more developed. Case No. 79MF, Irwin Siegel, request for approval of final construction drawings for a 180-unit condominium project to be located at Kings Point - Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Cipriani indicated that the applicant had failed to provide much of the required information, i.e. landscaping plan, modified site plan, color samples, etc. Discussion on this case insued in regard to the drainage problem with the project, long delay between Phase 1 and 2 and why the Design Review Board process approved the project i .1 Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 20, 1977 Page Four IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Continued) A. Case No. 79MF (Continued) when a complete set of plans had not been submitted. Mr. Cook noted that he would receive in the next few days a report from consultants on the needed drainage in the area and then he could review the plans and make the final decisions. MR. IRWIN SIEGEL, Builder, 17001 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 200, Encino, Ca. spoke to the Commission in favor of the project, noting that further delay of the project would cause problems for the seller, the purchaser, and the completion of the project. Mr. Siegel indicated that if the 180-units could not be approved the project would be stopped at this point. Chairman Berkey and Commissioner Snyder pointed out that there are no dams for the water run-off in the area and that the City is presently in- volved in a law suit with the City of Indian Wells over the same problem. The Commission recommended that the Case be continued until the August 2nd meeting and allow time for Mr. Cook to receive his report from the consultants and make a decision on the flood control issue. Case No. 82MF, Portola Village, request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for a 48 unit condominium project to be located on the east side of Portola, south of Goleta. The need for larger turn- around areas was noted, also the relocation of the swimming pool as re- quested by the Design Review Board process. MR. STEVE FLESHMAN, 74-133 El Paseo, Palm Desert, spoke to the Com- mission in favor of the project noting that the streets are private with upgraded elevations, with less traffic and no through traffic. Commissioner Kelly noted the reasons for the relocation of the pool would be due to the children in the area. The Commission recommended that Condition No. 12 be deleted with regard to the relocation of the swimming pool. Case No. 51C, HMS Plaza West, request for approval of final construction drawings for an office complex to be located on the southwest corner of E1 Paseo and Lantana. Mr. Cipriani recommended that Condition No. 18 be changed to read "A sidewalk six (6) feet in width in addition to a land- scaped berm a minimum of 3 feet in height shall be installed along Larrea Street." MR. STEVE FLESHMAN, 74-133 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Motion by Commissioner Reading, seconded by Commissioner Snyder to accept the Design Review Board Cases by Planning Commission Resolution No. 264 with the follow- ing changes to the Resolution: Case No. 79MF is continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 2, 1977, Condition No. 12 of Case No. 82MF is hereby deleted and change Condition No. 18 of Case No. 51C to read as follows: A sidewalk six (6) feet in width in addition to a landscaped berm a minimum of 3 feet in height shall be installed along Larrea Street; carried unanimously (4-0). X. DISCUSSION ITEMS Discussion followed led by comments by Mr. Williams on the information provided the Commission concerning the Draft Growth Impact and Evaluation Report by CVAG, the letter from Assemblyman Daniel E. Boatwright regarding SB467, the Draft Blowsand Con- trol and Protection Plan by CVAG, and How Will America Grow, the importance of each and comments now and later would be appreciated. It was noted that the growth of the valley will triple by 1980, population figures noted in the reports came from the staff of the cities involved. MINUTES AMENDED Emir o:ff I Ilrnm 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: July 12, 1977 REPORT ON: 217 - Unit condominium CASE NO.: 75 MF ZONE: PR-7 LOCATION: Ironwood Country Club APPLICANT: Silver Spur Assoc. NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary landscaping 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 con itions. Date of Action: Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: July 12, 1977 Johnson Hobbs 4-0 Reasons for Ne atiye Vote (s): An 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 COMMENTS: -76 Pi - Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Eight The first case Mr. Cipriani presented to the Commission was Case No. 58SA - Sign for a Commercial Structure for ROY WILLIAM CARVER. Mr. Cipriani gave a background of the request and explained that the DRB had upheld their previous decision to approve the sign program as modified at their meeting of May 24, 1977. BERNARD LEUNG, 73-960 E1 Paseo, Architect for the project, spoke to the Commission regarding the modification of the approved sign program by reducing the length of the facia signs from 12 feet to 8 feet. There was a discussion between the Commissioners, staff, and Mr. Leung concerning the proposed reduction in the length of the facia, the original ORB approval, and conformance to the City's Sign Ordinance. It was de- cided to delete Condition No. 4 from the Conditions for this case. (Condition No. 4 reads as follows: "Each business shall be permitted one (1) four (4) square foot hanging tenant sign. Such signs may be two- sided."). CASE NO. 75MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a 217-Unit Condominium Project for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES. Mr. Cipriani explained that this was the continuing development of Ironwood Country Club and contained the same layout and design as the previous "phases. Mr. Williams informed the Commission that they would be seeing this project as a Tentative Tract at their next meeting scheduled for July 5, 1977. CASE NO. 23SA - Sign Program for Palms to Pines for ROY WILLIAM CARVER Mr. Cipriani reviewed the applicant's proposal and the Design Review Board's decision regarding this case. He also explained that the existing signs would be removed. Further, the new signs would read "Palms to Pines East" and "Palms to Pines West". Finally, the project would end up with 6 directory signs and 4 welcome signs. Mr. Williams explained that these would be map -type signs and they would not be visible from passing vehicles. CASE NO. 53C - New Elevations and Revised Site Plan for an Existing Restaurant for CARL COX Mr. Cipriani explained that this was a remodel of an existing structure formerly known as the Tortilla Flats Restaurant. There were no major changes to the structure itself, just changes to the exterior. Mr. Cipriani showed pictures of the structure to the Commissioners. Finally, he explained that a six (6) foot masonry wall would be installed at the rear of the property adjacent to Garden Square. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 251, with the deletion of Condition No. 4 for Case No. 58SA. Commissioner Snyder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0). CASE NO. 76MF - Preliminary and Final Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a 193-Unit Condominium Project for BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. Mr. Williams explained that there was a unique situation with regards to this case which required the preparation of a separate resolution. He explained that the Design Review Board abstained from any decision on this case and referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Further, the ORB had sympathized with the applicant and felt that it would prove a hardship to require the applicant to provide for single -story units along Highway 74 at this stage of the process. Also, the Planning Commission had already ap- proved the two-story units. t in PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Z51 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF JUNE 7, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of June 7, 1977, including: Case No. 23SA - Sign Program for Palms to Pines for ROY WILLIAM CARVER; Case No. 58SA - Sign for a Commercial Structure for ROY WILLIAM CARVER; Case No. 53C - New Elevations and Revised Site Plan for an Existing Restaurant for CARL COX; Case No. 75MF - Preliminary Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans for a 217-Unit Condominium Project for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES; 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 June 7, 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 June 7, 1977, except that Conditio,- No. 4 of Case No. 58SA is hereby deleted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of June, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: KELLY, KRYDER, READING, SNYDER, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE LI�iZ1I�E��[i1Rl ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION GEORGE BERKEY, CHAIRMAN 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 11 DATE June 21, 1977 APPLICANT Silver Spur Associates P. 0. Box 1727 _ Palm Desert, CA. 92660 CASE NO.: 75MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of June 14, 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED XXX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 251 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 JUNE 7, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 75MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all require- ments of CUP 1382 and Tract No. 5565, and to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A & B), and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. 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 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. All service and distribution lines for utilities shall be placed underground. 5. No roof top air conditioning equipment shall be permitted. 6. Elevations are approved as shown. 7. Final construction drawings, including but not limited to landscaping, irriga- tion, fencing, trash storage, and exterior lighting plans shall be submitted for Design Review Board process approval prior to the submittal of plans for building permits. All requirements of the final approval shall be made a part of construction. 8. 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 completed. 9. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks or approved pathways, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of the City Engineer. 10. The southwest corner of Portola and Irontree Drive shall be landscaped in a similar manner as the southeast corner of said intersection forming a more attractive entrance. 11. It is suggested that the applicant explore the feasibility of solar heating for all swimming pools. 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) (Appl icant s Signature DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT bate: June 7, 1977 REPORT ON: 217-Unit Condominium Project CASE NO.: 75MF ZONE: PR-7 LOCATION: Ironwood Country Club APPLICANT: Silver Spur Associates 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 APPROVED this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: Motion Made By Seconded By: 6/7/77 Minturn Hobbs Vote: Approved 3-0(Leung,Hobbs,Minturn)Urrutia abstained. Reasons for Negative Vote (s): (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Citig Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS On Planning Commission Agenda of June 14, 1977 0 t JUNE 7, 1977 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 75MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all require- ments of CUP 1382 and Tract No. 5565, and to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibits A & B), and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. 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 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. All service and distribution lines for utilities shall be placed underground. 5. No roof top air conditioning equipment shall be permitted. 6. Elevations are approved as shown. 7. Final construction drawings, including but not limited to landscaping, irriga- tion, fencing, trash storage, and exterior lighting plans shall be submitted for Design Review Board process approval prior to the submittal of plans for building permits. All requirements of the final approval shall be made a part of construction. 8. 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 completed. 9. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks or approved pathways, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of the City Engineer. 10. The southwest corner of Portola,and Irontree Drive shall be landscaped in a similar manner as the southeast corner of said intersection forming a more attractive entrance. 11. It is suggested that the applicant explore the feasibility of solar heating for all swimming pools. AGREEMENT I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with all the conditions set forth, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. Date (Applicant's S gnatureT— PALM DESERT TUESDAY 5:30 PM - CITY MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - JUNE 7, 1977 HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. The Study Session of the Design Review Board began at 4:30 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. 2 3. Members Present: Bill Hobbs, Bernie Leung, George Minturn, Frank Urrutia, Ralph Cipriani (for Paul Williams) ft Others Present: Sam Freed After a one -hour study session, the meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the min- utes of the previous meeting of May 24, 1977 be approved as written. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Minturn, Urrutia). CASE NO. 23SA, ROY WILLIAM CARVER, APPLICANT Request for approval of a sign program for the Palm to Pines Shopping Center. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the applicant's proposal and presented the additional information the Board had requested regarding the location of existing signs. The Board determined that the welcome signs should read "Palms to Pines East" or "Palms to Pines West" depending on which side of Plaza Way the signs are located. In addition, they believed the two signs proposed for the intersec- tion of Plaza Way and El Paseo are unnecessary. Conditions #5, 06, and #7 were added to the Conditions of Approval to reflect these determinations. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn that the sign program be approved as modified and subject to the conditions of approval. Motion carried 3-0 (Urrutia, Hobbs, Minturn), Leung abstained. CASE NO. 58SA, ROY WILLIAM CARVER, APPLICANT Request for approval of sign program for a commercial structure located in E1 Paseo Square. Mr. Cipriani informed the Board that this case had been referred back to the DRB by the Planning Commission. After the Design Review Board's first review, staff had been made aware of the fact that the applicant has approval of the sign program stemming back to September 7, 1976 and that the applicant's most recent request would only modify the approved sign program by reducing the length of the facia signs from 12 feet to 8 feet. The Planning Commission wanted the ORB to review the case once again in light of this new information. Mr. Minturn made a motion that would have approved the applicant's original sign program and their recently requested modification. However, his motion died for the lack of a second. A motion was then made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Urrutia which re- affirmed the Board's previous decision and approved the sign program as modified by the Board at their May 24, 1977 meeting. Motion carried 2-1 (Yes - Hobbs and Urrutia) (No - Minturn), Leung abstained. 4. CASE NO. 55C, AL KURI, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a commercial structure to be located on the north side of E1 Paseo, west of Sage Lane. The discussion of this case centered around the actual location of the pro- posed structure on the site. Mr. Leung indicated that the proposed building as shown, encroached into the rear parking easement so that the plan would have to be revised. The Board agreed that the pitch of the tiled area on the facade would have to be decreased as it posed a potential threat by lying at the angle shown. Mr. Hill indicated that he had discussed the proposed wrought iron gates with the applicant informing the applicant that they would either ., Minutes Palm Desert Design Review Board June 7, 1977 Page Two have to be removed or remain open at any and all times during which any of the offices or stores are occupied in order to meet fire and building codes. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Leung that the preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans be rejected. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Urrutia, Minturn). 5. CASE NO. 74MF, DILLMAN & DILLMAN, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a duplex to be located on the east side of Panorama and south of E1 Camino. The Board rejected this case as the design of the proposed structure is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be detrimental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the Board believed that the design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable environment for its occupants not its neighbors nor is it aesthetically of good composition, materials, and texture. Condition #9 was deleted as Mr. Hill indicated it did not apply in the present case. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Minturn to reject the pre- liminary site, floor, and elevation plans. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Urrutia, Minturn). 6. CASE NO. 53C, CARL COX, APPLICANT Request for approval of new elevations and revised site plan for an existing restaurant located south of E1 Paseo and East of Lantana. The Board had no objections to the new addition. Discussion centered around the entrance gate and valet parking station. Mr. Urrutia stated that there was a weak relationship between the main structure and the entrance gate. He suggested the applicant devote further study to the problem. The Board indicated that the signs were not being approved. Mr. Hobbs suggested the applicant might consider a reduction in the height of the gates and Mr. Leung sug.gested additional study with regard to the relationship between planar surfaces. A motion was made by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by Mr. Leung to approve the new elevations and site plan and to require the applicant to study the entrance gates further and present a revised plan for them at a future date. Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Urrutia, Minturn). 7. CASE NO. 75MF, SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a 217-unit condominium project to be located at Ironwood Country Club. The Board added a condition, Condition #11, which requires the applicant to explore the feasibility of solar heating for all swimming pools. Mr. Hobbs asked the applicant why the one proposed swimming pool which is located near a fairway coundn't be re -located to another area across the street. The ap- plicant indicated that the site Mr. Hobbs was referring to was unsuitable for a pool due to the slope. Mr. Urrutia indicated that the Design Review Board was considering the fairways as a part of the overall site plan so that ap- proval of the preliminary site plan would include approval of the fairways. f Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 7, 1977 Page Three A motion was made by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Hobbs to approve the preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans including the fairways, but that the landscaping adjacent to the dwelling units would be considered on June 21, 1977. Motion carried 3-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Minturn), Urrutia abstained. CASE NO. 76MF, BIDDLE DEVELOPMENT INC., APPLICANT Request for approval of preliminary and final site, floor, and elevation plans for a 193-unit condominium project to be located west of Highway 74 adjacent to the Mountainback Development. After a lengthy discussion, the Board decided to require that all buildings within 150 feet of Highway 74 be limited to single story for aesthetic reasons. The applicant protested this condition indicating it would cause hardship in terms of re -design at this state of the process. Upon hearing the applicant's appeal, the Board decided to abstain from the case as they believed their in- put was being requested too late in the review process to be able to enforce the requirement of single story units on Highway 74 without causing unnecessary hardship to the applicant. In addition to the single story issue, the DRB urged the applicant to explore the feasibility of solar heating for all of the swimming pools and they informed the applicant that the landscaping would be reviewed at the next ORB meeting. It was moved by Mr. Hobbs and seconded by the case and forward their comments to the Motion carried 4-0 (Leung, Hobbs, Minturn, 9. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. RALPH CIPRIANI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA RC/mj Mr. Minturn that the Planning Commission Urrutia). ORB abstain from for consideration. CASE' NO. I 2 3 4 A J C CITY OF PALM DTiShRT, CALIFORNIA APPLICATION FOR ARCIIITECTUPAL !!"-IITT-;W BOA Location of Proprrty 6 /-1So-oo2 0 it a;l Assessor's Parcel No. of Property' - Zoning Class ification of Property: Use of structure(s) proposed: Gross industrial or commercial building area or nivaber an;, type of residertial units or signs,: ^ Applicant: (Please print) hailing Addi:F:ss: RD (Please print) (City) ( ti:•.z Phone: ea Code) (NumL,er) Names and addresses of .others who si:ould receive an agenda notify--- ing them of the hearing: (Please print) 7. 1 hereby certify that I have read and understand the adopted Staxidard Conditions of Approval of the ArchitecturaJ Review Boarci as scat forth in the-s application. Sigd'atiff-:a of Apolfptinly t/J�i/!/El SOU/" f� la , a ev&,a/ diy /�or�us�d Cbr,9�n'a�oN �yah��qq��r�,v�����; S. Prop rLy Owner: (Plea::(; pI .nt +me AS: iJi.ng Addre:5: f!jJ..ZjX Z= (Please print) Addres_; Oa/� _�IeseYt (city) Phone:�J14W0 ) J-005/ ( ea Code) (Number) tate PALPA D@S�RT OEQARrI^,EN7 OF ENVIROiBI:!7NTAL Sc'-,vICES EXHIBIT NO. _._._ CASE Np'_f r "% TO 3E USED BY STD Fr Based on the fact that this. ni-1plicatio^ is acca-r nie,ri by the r,,.teri.als and inloridation ou.tlil.ed in the inst ru%t ions, I acc:�17t it `or revieiv by the Archi.I.Octural. Review Bor.rd. Signature e Fee Paid Cas_ N.O. As­igr- _ci --- .eeL_na Data s_ ii ed Reason for ARB heview Cater;ori cal E�er:ptin:: Class No. UE.I.R.. process complete (__Case No. inisterial Project: CC: Applicant CITY C. PALM DESERT 45.2 5 PRICKLY PEAR LANE PALM DESERT CA. 92260 (714)546-0611 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APP. NO. DATE REC. (DD NOT wwrE /N mis SPACE) APPLICANT (Please print) Si/yer'.�o�-Associa�esa yehe�-a//��iershia 6 /rohwa�� ler ,rho i arftie� (NAM E) RO ,+X /727 �7ifJ396 -ass/ 1 (Moiling address) (Telephone) IAa/� Dese Ca/rf _ 92z�o (Cit ) • State (Zip -Code) Request:( describe specific nature of approval requested) I, Cafi�e/�va/la�ds�e andn'e�dfiar� aporor�a/ Property Description: ..bv�l ri� of,Oc�o%,wesf �J�lararosa .�rJ�riffryy �ra�f sss¢ lO�siir rYre Assessors Parcel No. Existing Zoning OR-7 Z7o-noB-oiB Existing Gen. Plan Designation - Prop a r ty Owner Authorization: The undersignad states that they are the owner(s) of the property described herein and hereby give 1 authorization for the filing of this application. t:/ahe 1, /977 i e D ter — Agreement Absolving the City of Po e t Ilia ' 1 e ive o y e d es r1c ons. • I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, absolve the City of Polm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed re Actions that may be applicable to the property described herein. Signature ( for staff use only) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. Me. ❑ CATEGORICA EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION ❑ OTHER NOTE: APPLICANT MUST ALSO COMPLETE RELATED SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION. Accepted by: CASE No. MF 7S V F Reference Case No. CITY OF PALM DESERT SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Design Review of: TYPE OF PROJECT APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY: CASE NO. 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. FENCES, POOLS 8 TENNIS COURTS DEPARTMENT DESIGN (� PLANNING t DEPARTMENT IVAPPLOF ENVIRON- (� REVIEW F-\ COMMISSION r\ BUILDING AND MENTAL L�/ BOARD L� (APPROVES OR L)/ SAFETY SERVICES (ADVISORY) DENIES PROJECT) STAFF INTERIOR REMODELS., MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS CONSTRUCT- ION Department of Environmental Services Form 1: Approved by Planning Commission on Page Two City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application Form 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 Supplemental Application ,vrm 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. f. (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 Form 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 Anal sis & Preliminar Draina e & 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 VI 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) 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 Elevations of all Sides of all Structures (to scale and with dimensions Page Nine City of Palm Desert Supplemental Application rorm DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS VII. Elevations of Signs (if applicable) VIII.- Elevations of Fencing, Perimeter Screening and Walled Areas IX. Description of Materials to be Used and Chart Showing Exact Color of Materials to be Used 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.