Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90MF JOSEPH MUTASCIOMinutes Design Review Board April 25, 1978 Page Two 6. Case No. 99MF - SUNRISE COMPANY - Final construction drawings for clubhouses for 780-unit condominium project to be located north of the Whitewater Storm Channel between Portola and Monterey. Applicant not present. On a motion by Urrutia, seconed by Jackson, the Board approved the final con- struction drawings. Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Jackson, Minturn, Johnson). 7. Case No. 89MF - JOSEPH MUSTASCIO - Final construction drawings for a duplex to be located on the south side of Catalina, between San Rafael and San Carlos. Applicant not present. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn, the Board approved the final construction drawings subject to the applicant providing an automatic sprink- ling system. A drip system was recommended as an alternate system for land- scaping around the structure; carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Minturn, Jackson, Johnson). 8. Ca a o. 90MF - JOSEPH MUTASCIO - Final construction drawings for a duplex to located o the west side of Monterey between San Nicholas and Santa Rosa Applic trot present. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn, the Board approved the final con- struction drawings subject to the applicant providing an automatic sprinkling system. An alternate drip sprinkling system for landscaping around the struc- ture was recommended. Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Minturn, Jackson, Johnson). 9. Case No. 91MF - C. G. DUNHAM - Final construction drawings for a 20-unit con- domini— um project to be located on the north side of Shadow Mountain, west of Lupine. Applicant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the final con- struction drawings subject to the following: a. Modify carport and roof treatment as shown on Exhibit A. b. Roof tile shall be same as used on Phase I. c. Revise landscaping plan to include: 1. Grading plan 2. Use 2' to 3' berm along Shadow Mountain 3. Increase size of trees 4. Resubmit landscaping plan prior to issuing permits. Carried 4-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Urrutia, Johnson). 10. Case No. 79C - C. G. DUNHAM - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a com- mercial project to be located on the south side of E1 Paseo between Lupine Lane and Sun Lodge. Applicant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the preliminary site, floor and elevation subject to the applicants compliance with special conditions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Carried 4-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Urrutia, Johnson). 11. Case No. 115MF - CHARLES KRUG - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a duplex tobelocated on the west side of Monterey, south of 44th Avenue. Applicant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the Board agreed to accept the pre- liminary plans as final construction drawings subject to staff's approval of the following conditions to be complied with by the applicant: a. Reduce parking space back-up areas by 3 feet and provide landscaping. b. Provide a 6 foot high wall around 3 sides of building and structural land- scaping. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (TIQ 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT REPORT ON: Duplex CASE NO.: 90MF Date: April 27, 1978 ZONE: R-2, S.P. LOCATION: West side of Monterey, between San Nicholas and Santa Rosa APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final construction drawings DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB APPROVED this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action Motion Made By Seconded By: Vote: April 25, 1978 Urrutia Minturn 4-0 Reasons for Negative Vote (s): (An ­appea of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (Z5) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 9W-1F Applicant shall redesign driveways so a single driveway shall be provided on Monterey with backup areas so as to eliminate motorists from backing out onto Monterey. Extensive landscaping in conjunction with the single driveway design shall cause the garage doors to be par- tially hidden from view. 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 oc- cupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department o5131 71onmeervic ( at cant's Sign ture) /, \\ Minutes Design Review Board April 25, 1978 Page Two 6. Case No. 99MF - SUNRISE COMPANY - Final construction drawings for clubhouses for 780-unit condominium project to be located north of the Whitewater Storm Channel between Portola and Monterey. Applicant not present. On a motion by Urrutia, seconed by Jackson, the Board approved the final con- struction drawings. Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Jackson, Minturn, Johnson). 7. Case No. 89MF - JOSEPH MUSTASCIO - Final construction drawings for a duplex to be located on the south side of Catalina, between San Rafael and San Carlos. Applicant not present. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn, the Board approved the final construction drawings subject to the applicant providing an automatic sprink- ling system. A drip system was recommended as an alternate system for land- scaping around the structure; carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Minturn, Jackson, Johnson). 8. Case No. 90MF - JOSEPH MUTASCIO - Final construction drawings for a duplex to be located on the west side of Monterey between San Nicholas and Santa Rosa. Applicantnot present. On a motion by Urrutia, seconded by Minturn, the Board approved the final con- struction drawings subject to the applicant providing an automatic sprinkling system. An alternate drip sprinkling system for landscaping around the struc- ture was recommended. Carried 4-0 (Urrutia, Minturn, Jackson, Johnson). 9. Case No. 91MF - C. G. DUNHAM - Final construction drawings for a 20-unit con- dominium project to be located on the north side of Shadow Mountain, west of Lupine. Applicant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the final con- struction drawings subject to the following: a. Modify carport and roof treatment as shown on Exhibit A. b. Roof tile shall be same as used on Phase I. c. Revise landscaping plan to include: 1. Grading plan 2. Use 2' to 3' berm along Shadow Mountain 3. Increase size of trees 4. Resubmit landscaping plan prior to issuing permits. Carried 4-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Urrutia, Johnson). 10. Case No. 79C - C. G. DUNHAM - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a com- mercial project to be located on the south side of E1 Paseo between Lupine Lane and Sun Lodge. Applicant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the Board approved the preliminary site, floor and elevation subject to the applicants compliance with special conditions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Carried 4-0 (Minturn, Jackson, Urrutia, Johnson). 11. Case No. 115MF - CHARLES KRUG - Preliminary site, floor and elevations for a duplex to be located on the west side of Monterey, south of 44th Avenue. Applicant present. On a motion by Minturn, seconded by Jackson, the Board agreed to accept the pre- liminary plans as final construction drawings subject to staff's approval of the following conditions to be complied with by the applicant: a. Reduce parking space back-up areas by 3 feet and provide landscaping. b. Provide a 6 foot high wall around 3 sides of building and structural land- scaping. r- C�t:a�J�r o0 , l8a� =)(N=(�)320try 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Duplex CASE NO.: 90MF Date: April 27, 1978 ZONE: R-2, S.P. LOCATION: West side of Monterey, between San Nicholas and Santa Rosa APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final construction drawings DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB APPROVED this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: April 25, 1978 Urrutia Minturn 4-0 Reasons for Negative Vote (s): (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of PaZm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: H DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: April 25. 1978 CASE NO.: 90MF APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO LOCATION: West side of Monterey, between San Nicholas and Santa Rosa ZONING: R-2, S.P. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the final construction drawings. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 90%.IF I. Applicant shall redesign driveways so a single driveway shall be provided on Monterey with backup areas so as to eliminate motorists from backing out onto Monterey. Extensive landscaping in conjunction with the single driveway design shall cause the garage doors to be par- tially hidden from view. 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 oc- cupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. te) (Applicant's Signature) 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE Nov. 2, 1977 APPLICANT Joseph A. Mustascio 73-612 Hiehwav 111, Ste. 9 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 CASE NO.: 90MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of Nov. 1. 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 299 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 PLANNING'COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 299 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FIND- INGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF OCTOBER 25, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of October 11, 1977, approving: Case No. 88MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a duplex for VICTOR JENNINGS; Case No. 89MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a duplex for JOSEPH MUTASCIO; Case N 90M - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a duplex for JOSEPH MUTASCIO; Case No. 32MF - Request for approval of a final land- scaping plan for a 13-unit apartment com- plex for JOSEPH MUTASCIO; Case No. 92MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a hotel -condominium project for AFFILIATED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC Case No. 91MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a 20 con- dominium units for C. G. DUNHAM; Case No. 50C - Request for approval of final construction drawings for a commercial building for DR. CRAINE; Case No. 61C - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for an addition to a Commercial Structure for BERNARD LEUNG; 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 October 25, 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 October 25, 1977 except that the final landscaping plan for Case No. 77MF is not approved. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of November, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KELLY, KRYDER, SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: READING ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary T,I Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission November 1, 1977 IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Cont.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there would be any ing on the roofs. Mr. Gibbs stated there would be none. stated that 42nd Avenue would be extended. Mr. Cipriani the project will be done in stages. Page Eight air condition - Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Beebe indicated that a change was needed in condition 7, it should read as follows: "Lighting of parking areas and premises shall be provided as approved by the Director of Environmental Services. Street lights shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer." Some discussion followed over this condition. Mr. Beebe noted that street lights would be needed at Cook and 42nd. It was moved by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder to approve the Design Review Board Actions of October 11, 1977 with the addition to Condition No. 7 to read as follows: "Lighting of parking areas and premises shall be provided as approved by the Director of Environmental Services. Street lights shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer" by Planning Commission Resolution No. 299; carried unanimously (4-0). A. Review of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their meeting of October 25, 1977. Mr. Cipriani reviewed the cases starting with Case No. 88MF and Mr. Williams noted that the Design Review Board wants a cluster of trees at the driveway and similar treatment at the end of the building. Mr. Jennings the applas present. Regarding Case No. 89MF an 90XF here was some discussion on the driveways and the garages. In reference in Case No. 32MF Mr. Williams noted that the Design Review Board requests 32 trees in front. Mr. Williams also noted that Case No. 92MF had been reviewed with DP 11-77A earlier in the meeting. Mr. Williams then reviewed Case No. 91MF and covered the various con- cerns of the Design Review Board as stated in their minutes. Mr. Cipriani reviewed Case No. 50C and there was some discussion on the enclosure area. He then reviewed Case No. 61C. Mr. Bernie Leung was present. It was moved by Commissioner Snyder and seconded by Commissioner Kelly to approve the actions of the Design Review Board on October 25, 1977 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 299; carried unanimously (4-0). X. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None XI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XII. COMMENTS A. City Staff - Mr. Cipriani noted that the Mayor has requested that a member of the Commission serve on the CVAG Housing and Community Development Subcommittee. Commissioner Kryder volunteered to serve. Mr. Williams stated that the first COD Area Specific Plan neighborhood meeting would be on Nov. 2nd, the 2nd on the 3rd, the 3rd on the 7th which they expect to have a big turn out at this meeting, the 4th meeting on the 8th and the final meeting on the 9th. He stated that he hoped a Commissioner would be able to attend some of the meetings. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: October 26, 1977 REPORT ON: Duplex CASE NO.: 90MF ZONE: R-2, S.P. LOCATION: West side of Monterey, between San Nicholas and Santa Rosa APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGIIT: Preliminary site, floor and elevations 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: October 25, 1977 Motion Made By: Jackson Seconded By: Leung Vote: 4-D Reasons for Ne ative 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 COcIDIENTS: Placed on the Planning Commission agenda for the meeting of November 1, 1977. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 90MF 1. Applicant shall redesign driveways so a single driveway shall be provided on Monterey with backup areas so as to eliminate motorists from backing out onto Monterey. Extensive landscaping in conjunction with the single driveway design shall cause the garage doors to be par- tially hidden from view. Agreement I accept and agree, prior to use of this permit or approval, to comply with all the conditions set forth, and understand that the Department of Building and Safety will not issue a building permit or allow occupancy on the use permitted until this signed confirmation has been received by the Department of Environmental Services. (Date) Applicant's Signature 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: Oct. 12, 1977 REPORT ON: Duplex CASE NO.: 90MF ZONE: R-2, S.P. LOCATION: West side of Monterey, between San Nicholas & Santa Rosa APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary site, floor and elevations DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB CONTINUED TO OCT. 25 this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: Oct. 11, 1977 Motion Made By: Urrutia Seconded By: Jackson Vote 4-0 Reasons for Ne ative 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: �ppb�3C����Oo Zq ( MRE ***DESIGN REVIEW BOARD*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) --y' /D PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: N up-co(le ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. EXISTING ZONING Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER IS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR- IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION. \ GNATURE UATO AGREEMENT ABSOLVI HE CITY OF PAL ESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEW RESTRICTIONS. I DO BY SIG URE ON HIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. SIGNATURE Applicants E (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) NVIRO ENTAL STATUS ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION ❑ OTHER IN ACCEPTED BY CASE No. 90 114Fc REFERENCE CASE NO. The Design Review Board reviews detailed design permit. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON- MENTAL SERVICES STAFF process is the method by which the City of Palm Desert and construction plans prior to the issuance of a building POOLS d TEN DESIGN n PLANNING I� DEPARTMENT REVIEW r\ COMMISSION r\ BUILDING AND BOARD (APPROVES OR L� SAFETY (ADVISORY) DENIES PROJECT) INTERIOR REMODELS, MINOR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, OR PLUMBING PERMITS STAFF USE ONLY: CONSTRUCT- ION Date Received Date of ACTOR Meeting ACTION APPLICANT NOTIFIED Staff DRB P.C. C.C. Department of Environmental Services Form 1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. 90MF 1. Applicant shall redesign driveways so a single driveway shall be provided on Monterey with backup areas so as to eliminate motorists from backing out onto Monterey. Extensive landscaping in conjunction with the single driveway design shall cause the garage doors to be par- tially hidden from view. 0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: Oct. 11. 1977 CASE NO.: 90MF APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO LOCATION: West side of Monterey, between San Nicholas and Santa Ro. ZONING: R-2, S.P. 76-U-J �21114 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this case subject to an additional condition Which requires that the applicant redesign the driveways so that backup space will be provided eliminating the need to back out onto Monterey Avenue. The applicant expressed agreement when discussing the recommendation with Mr. Williams. Irj >: n124'R^.yu '6 Design Review of: CITY OF PALM DESERT APPLICATION FORM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS TYPE OF PROJECT APPLICANT CASE NO Agreement of compliance to be signed by those applying for review. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and agree, to comply with all the following requirements, 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. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all development plans submitted in behalf of this case, and as revised according to the Design Review Board process. Any minor change requires approval by the Director of Envi- ronmental Services. Any substantial change requires ap- proval by the Design Review Board. 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. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project, commencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. Landscaping (with irrigation system) shall be installed prior to final inspection and receiving certificate of occupancy. Curb, gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided along the full frontage of the lot by means of installation prior to final inspection or other provisions as approved by the City Engineer. Construction shall conform to City Stan- dards and all requirements of the City Engineer. n u Department of Environmental Services Form 1 te) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS NOTE: NO APPLICATION SHALL BE PROCESSED UNTIL STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION PACKAGE IS COMPLETE. 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 and/or addi- tional five (5) site plans for all projects which go to the Planning Commission. The "PLANS" shall consist of the following: I. General Information Block (to include:) A. Owner's name, address, and phone number B. Designer's name, address, and phone number C. 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 to include: (to scale) 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 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 Perimeter fencing and screening 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 VI. Elevations of all Sides of all Structures (to scale and with dimensions VII. Elevations of Signs (if applicable) VIII. Elevations of Fencina. Perimeter Screening and Walled Areas IX. Description of Materials to be 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. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS GENERAL INFORMATION I. PROCESSING SCHEDULE: 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. II. 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. III. ADOPTED 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. A• TERRAIN CONTROL STANDARDS UNACCEPTABLE 1. Terrain and soils shall be structurally stable and suitable for development. A• TERRAIN CONTROL STANDARDS (continued) UNACCEPTABLE 2. (Water Erosion) Property to be developed shall be protected against drainage runoff from adjacent properties. 3. (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. 4. (Wind Erosion) Property to be developed shall be protected against wind carried deposits from adjacent areas. 5. (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. 6. Curb and gutters shall be provided where required to control and regulate drainage. B. ACCESS & CIRCULATION STANDARDS 1. Safe & convenient vehicle access to property and development therein shall be provided. 2. Safe and convenient pedestrian access to property and development therein shall be provided. 3. Circulation plans (auto, bicycle, and pedestrian) shall conform to municipally developed circulation plans for the vicinity and immediate area. C. SITE PLANNING STANDARDS Site Planning shall occur in a manner which minimizes obstruc- tion of scenic views from adjacent properties. 2. Site Planning shall be compatible with existing terrain. 3. Site Planning shall occur in a manner which does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the detriment of adjacent properties. 4. Site Planning shall occur in a manner in which asphalt or concrete is minimized. 5. Avoid unnecessary impediments for handicapped persons. UNACCEPTABLE D. UTILITY & EQUIPMENT STANDARDS 1. All service utility lines shall be placed underground. 2. All control panels, vaults and necessary equipment shall be architecturally screened or landscaped or other- wise concealed from public view. 3. 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. E. VEHICLE PARKING STANDARDS 1. Off-street parking should be located in proximity to facilitie(s) it serves. 2. Parking areas should be screened from view wherever possible by means of berms, garden walls and landscaping. 3. Parking areas shall be shaded where practical. 4. Carports for apartment developments shall not front onto a public right-of-way. 5• Garages should be encouraged not to front onto a public right-of-way. 6. All parking areas for recreational and accessory vehicles and trailers shall be architecturally screened or landscaped or otherwise concealed from public view. 7. Adequate handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. F. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 1. A singular architectural theme shall be applied to a given structure or complex. (including facade architecture). 2. Architectural design shall be applied to entire structure or complex rather than just to those sides exposed to public view. 3. 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. 4. Entrances shall include appropriate lighting and identification. 5. Architectural design shall employ materials and colors which are compatible and complementary to the desert area. UNACCEPTABLE F. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS (continued) 6. Architectural design shall incorporate provisions for signage (if applicable) as an integrated part of the overall design. 7. Architecture and landscaping shall be co-ordinated and com- plementary. 8. 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. G. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS 1. Landscaping shall be an integral part of the site planning and architectural design on all projects. 2. Provisions for the adequate maintenance and irrigation of landscaping shall be made through the use of underground irritation systems. 3. Landscaping, walls and fences shall not create unsafe conditions along public rights -of -way. H. LIGHTING, IDENTIFICATION & SIGNAGE STANDARDS 1. Signage shall be architecturally integrated with the structure involved. 2. Signage shall be of colors compatible and complementary to the structure it relates to and to other development in its surroundings. 3. No lighting of signage shall exceed an output of 10 candle- power at 10 feet. 4. Signage for commercial uses shall be for identification pur- poses only. I. FENCING, SCREENING & ENCLOSURE STANDARDS 1. Materials and colors of fences and walls shall be compatible and complementary to the structures with which they relate. 2. Fences, walls, and enclosures shall be handled as an integrated part of the architecture and landscaping. 3. Outside service and storage areas, where permitted, shall be enclosed and screened. UNACCEPTABLE I. FENCING, SCREENING & ENCLOSURE STANDARDS (continued) 4. Fences and walls shall not obstruct line -of -sight along public rights -of -way. J. SERVICE AREA STANDARDS I. Service areas shall be designed and constructed of materials and colors which are compatible and complementary to the structures of complexes they serve. 2. Service areas shall be located in a manner which does not adversely affect adjacent properties. 3. Service areas shall be screened and/or enclosed to prevent their exposure to public rights -of -way and adjacent pro- perties. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS' GUIDE TO PROCEDURES FILING PROCEDURE: Prior to submittal the applicant shall discuss his pro- posal with the Planning staff to determine whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the General Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other requirements. II. GENERAL INFORMATION: Meetings: 1) 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. 2) Planning Commission meetings are held on Tuesday, nine (9) days prior to the first Council meeting of the month, also at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and Wednesday, eight (8) days prior to the second Council meeting of the month, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers. 3) The Design Review Board convenes on Tues- day, a week before the Planning Commission, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers. Public Hearing: Public hearings are held when the City considers re- quests for a change of zone, variance, conditional 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. 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. Fees: All required fees are listed in the Fee Schedule, as approved by the City Council. 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. 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. Application should be made to the Code En- forcement Supervisor. 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. IPA III. DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS AND REQUIRED FEES: ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION PLANNED DISTRICT -PD Provides detailed information on new DEVELOPMENT PLAN development in the Planned Residential (PR), Planned Commercial (PC), or Plan - (Planning Commission and Council ned Indistrial (PI) zones. Action Required) Application Fee: PR Zone with C/Z re- quest 450 + 2 DU - $1,000 Max. No C/Z request $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 problems, the Palm Desert Municipal Code (Planning Commission Action Required) provides that conditional use permits shall be required "so that they may be located properly with respect to the ob- jectives of the zoning regulations." 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%. ADJUSTMENT -ADJ The Palm Desert Municipal Code provides for an adjustment to the terms of the (Approval of Zoning Administrator zoning ordinance to allow minor reductions Required) in yard setbacks or parking requirements. Application Fee: $30 VARIANCE -VAR A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance may be obtained only when, be - (Planned Commission Action Required) cause of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, or topography, the 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; sIbU other. CHANGE OF ZONE -C/Z A change of zone request may be initiated by the owner or authorized agent of the (Planning Commission and Council owner of property. All zoning designations Action Required must be in conformance to the General Plan or any specific plan for that area. Application Fee: $325 -3- ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -GPA Amendments of these plans are processed in REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT -RPA conformance to State Law and the ordinances SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -SPA and resolutions of the City of Palm Desert. (Planning Commission and Council Application Fee: $500 Action Required. Redevelopment Agency Action Required) TEMPORARY USE PERMIT -TUP To regulate temporary uses such as art sales, Christmas tree sales, garage sales, subdivi- (Approval of Zoning Administrator sion sales office, and model homes so that Required) they will not be detrimental to surrounding property. Application Fee: $10 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT -HOP To regulate the use of business activities in residential neighborhoods. (Approval of Zoning Administrator Required) Application Fee: $0 CERTIFICATE OF USE -CRT A use certificate insures that each new or expanded use of a structure or site complies (Approval of Zoning Administrator with all applicable provisions of the Palm Required) Desert Municipal Code. Application Fee: $0 SIGN PERMIT -S Regulates the size, color, and location of (Approval of Planning Disision signs throughout the City. No sign may be erected without an approved sign permit. Staff Required; Design Review Board/Planning Commission Action Application Fee: Staff Review - $0- Required for Large Signs - See (less than $100 in value) ORB Process) $10-($100 - $500 in value) ORB & PC Review $15 TIME EXTENSION Where permits or approvals have been granted (Depending on use, may for a specific time period, time extensions require ap- proval of Zoning Administrator, Plan may be granted by the appropriate agency or body. ning Commission or City Council) Application Fee: $50, if public hearing is required. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Assures flexibility of the City's regulatory PLAN, CUP, VARIANCE, PLOT process due to unforeseen problems. PLAN APPROVAL (Anorovino body varies with nature Application Fee: $50, if public hearing is required. nF rc nst) -4- ACTION REQUESTED GENERAL INFORMATION DRB PROCESS -SF Review of landscaping, architecture, colors -MF and materials, and other zoning requirements (Requires approval of Planning -C prior to submittal for a building permit. Division staff or Design Review Board and Planning Commission) Application Fee: Single family $15 Other $50 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 required 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 and City Council) Application Fee: $250 + $2.50 per lot FINAL TRACT MAP Final adoption of plans and performance bonds on required subdivision improvements. (Approved by City Council) Application Fee: $100 + $6.00 per lot REVISED TENTATIVE MAP To provide for flexibility in the sub- division process necessitated by unfore- (Review by Dir. of Environmental seen circumstances. Services, may be reviewed by Planning Commission) Application Fee: $50 + $2.50 per add. lot APPEALS - ALL TYPES -APL The Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes the appeal process for various types of (Appeal agency based upon nature projects to insure maximum consideration of project) of individual applications. Application Fee: $50, if public hearing is required INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 requires an assessment of the impacts (Submit to Planning Division Staff) of proposed projects which require a dis- cretionary approval by the City. Application Fee: $30 -5- ACTION REQUESTED EIR REVIEW (Requires Planning Commission action, may require City Council action) OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION Detailed environmental posed impacts resulting which may have adverse sequences. Application Fee: $550 analysis of pro - from a project environmental con-