Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout32MF MUSTASCIOod� 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 Highway 111, Ste. 9 Palm Desert. Ca. 92260 CASE NO.: 32MF 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 XXX 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 Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission November 1, 1977 Page Eight IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS (Cont.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there would be any air condition- ing on the roofs. Mr. Gibbs stated there would be none. Mr. Williams stated that 42nd Avenue would be extended. Mr. Cipriani stated that the project will be done in stages. 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 applicant was present. Regarding Case No. 89MF and 90MF there was some discussion on the driveways and the garages. In reference in Case No. 32MF r. Williams noted that the Design Review Board requests 32 tree. i ront. 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. 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 No. 90MF - 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 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT REPORT ON: 13 unit apartment complex CASE NO.: 32MF ZONE: R-2 Date: Oct. 26, 1977 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Santa Rosa and San Pascual APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: 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: October 25, 1977 Motion Made By: Williams Seconded By: Leung 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: Placed on Planning Commission agenda for the meeting of November 1, 1977. 2/25/76 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE # 32MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all develop- ment plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibit A-1, B and C) and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City and - other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the de- velopment process. 3. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project com-'/ mencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. Any air conditioning equipment shall be fully concealed from view from any public rights of way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. a) All service utility lines shall be placed underground. b) As a part of construction, the applicant shall underground all overhead distribution/transmission utility lines along the full south and west frontage of the subject property. 6. Curb, gutter, spandrel, cross -gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with Riverside County Standards along the full front- age of the property on San Pascual. 7. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval prior to issuance of any building permit. Landscaping shell be provided adjacent to each driveway along the property line. 8. A noncombustible trash storage area shall be provided as approved by the J Director of Environmental Services. 9. Lighting of parking areas and premises shall be provided for as approved by the Design Review Board. y 10. Signage shall be provided in accordance with signage plan to be submitted to the Planning Division for final approval. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 12. Parking facilities for the existing dwelling unit shall be increased to con: form to current zoning ordinance requirements. 13. A lighter color shall be used for the wood siding. 14. Additional separation shall be provided hetween the existing dwelling unit and the new parking area. NAZI E _ r r. i CUAIIJ�r off 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: Oct. 12, 1977 REPORT ON: 13-unit Apartment Complex CASE NO.: 32MF ZONE: R-2 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Santa Rosa and San Pascual APPLICANT: JOSEPH MUTASCIO NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Landscaping 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 con itions. Date of Action: Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: October 11, 1977 Urrutia Hill 3-0 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: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE NO.: APPLICANT LOCATION DATE: Oct. 11, 1977 32AIF JOSEPH MUTASCIO Southeast corner of Santa Rosa & San Pascual ZONING: R_2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this landscaping plan with the following modifications: 1. Lawn er o~.' only.be placed in the parkway. 2. A one (1) foot landscaped strip be provided on the south boundary of the project. 3. Concrete wheel stops be eliminated on the west side of the parking lot and tam junipers be planted in the adjacent planting area to allow for vehicle overhang. 4. A six (6) foot masonry wall be constructed on the south and east property.lines in conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. s �� 3 was � Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission April 5, 1977 a.2/7jr-7 Page Thirteen The following cases were presented to the Commission by Mr. Freed, (All cases listed have received Design Review Board approval.): Case No. 51C - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for an office/retail complex for HMS PLAZA WEST; Case No. 52C - Request for approval of preliminary site plan and elevations for retail/office building for WILLIAM STEWART; Case No. 42C - Request for approval of construction plans for a retail complex for ROGER MEYER; Case No. 43C - Request for approval of construction plans for a retail complex for CURT DUNHAM; Case No. 33MF - Request for approval of construction plans for an 80-unit condominium project for SUNRISE CORPORATION; Case No. 32MF - Request for an extension of time of DRB approval for a 13-unit apartment complex for RICHARD COFFIN; Case No. 63MF - Request for approval of construction plans for an 18-unit condominium project for MARRAKESH BUILDING AND COUNTRY CLUB; Case No. 64MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a private health club for STEPHEN HERMAN and COLIN McDERMOTT; Case No. 65MF - Request for approval of construction plans for a 70-unit condominium project for FRED RICE. After a brief discussion pertaining to each of the above cases, the Commission again discussed Case No. 49C. Their consensus at this time was that Conditions No. 8 and No. 17 should be revised as follows: 8. Parking lot lighting and signage shall be provided in accordance with final construction plans to be submitted to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for final approval. Signage shall be limited to one (1) main building sign located on the north frontage of the building, a 24-hour teller sign, a time and temperature sign and logo sign as a part of the main sign on the north side of the building, a logo sign on the east and west sides of the building, a three (3) square foot drive-in teller sign, and a three (3) square foot customer parking sign. No signage shall be permitted on the fountain. The free standing directory signs shall be white letters on a brown background. 17. The stucco color of the building shall be more earthen tan in color and the roof material shall be red tile, a sample of which shall be reviewed as a part of the construction drawings. Commissioner Reading asked that it be noted for the record that he felt the entire traffic pattern should be redesigned. Commissioner Reading then moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 232, with the revisions as noted to Condition No. 8 and Condition No. 17 on Case No. 49C; and the inclusion of these revisions within the Resolution. Commis- sioner Berkey seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried with the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, READING, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY, MILLS ABSTAIN: NONE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT Date: March 29, 1977 REPORT ON: 13-Unit Apartment Complex CASE NO.: 32MF ZONE: R-2 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Santa Rose and San Pascual APPLICANT: RICIIARD COFFIN NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Time Extension DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB APPROVES this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: 3/29/77 Motion Made By: Minturn Seconded By: Johnson Vote: 4-0 (approval) 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 (ZS) days of the date of the decision.) STAFF COMMENTS: See attached conditions from City Fire Marshall. On Planning Commission Agenda of April 5, 1977 i INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services cc: Jim Hill, Director of Building & Safety FROM: Bud Engel, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Case No. 32MF (Casa Pasqual Apts.) DATE: March 28, 1977 Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings,the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any build- ing is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome , yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number 32 MF is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal." • MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 29,. 1977 Page Three 7. CASE NO. 43C, CURT DUNHAM, APPLICANT Review of construction plans for a retail complex - Plaza Taxco II - to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Sage Lane. Applicant present. The DRB informed the applicant that the minimum tree sizes in Condition No. 1 were being increased from a 12" to 20" box. Among other suggestions, Mr. Johnson recommended that the applicant use euculyptus citriodora widely and eliminate English Ivy as it burns easily. Mr. Williams asked the appli- cant to resubmit a landscape plan to reflect the appropriate changes. It was moved by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Minturn to approve the construction plans on the condition that a revised landscape plan will be submitted. Motion carried 4-0 (Williams, Minturn, Johnson, Hobbs). 8. CASE NO. 33MF - SUNRISE CORPORATION, APPLICANT Review of construction plans for an 80-unit condominium project to be located west of Monterey and 660 feet north of Park View Drive. Repre- sentative of applicant present. With regard to Condition No. 5, the applicant's representative expressed a desire by the applicant to have the city underground specific power lines south of the project. Mr. Williams said the proper procedure to obtain such a request would be to petition the City Council who would then make a deter- mination. The applicant's representative then referred to Condition No. 6 and asked the DRB if it would be acceptable if they could continue to construct a rolled curb as they were presently installing in Rancho Mirage. For the sake of uniformity, the DRB expressed approval of this action. The DRB agreed that Condition No. 10 which requires a split rail fence, would not have to be complied with if the project to the south has provided a fence at the time of final inspection. Mr. Williams stated that the County ordinance would be utiiized with regard to the pool fencing requirement. Therefore, a pool fence would not be required as the development is walled and has a gate. The DRB then eliminated Condition No. 13. The discussion then moved to Condition No. 14, which involves the minimum size of garages. The applicant's representative stated that this condition presents a problem as the units have already been sold. As a result, any alterations made with regard to the size of garages, if they should in turn alter the floor plans out of necessity, would raise many questions and bring complaints by the buyers. The DRB stated that it was not their intention to create any unreasonable situations or requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant meet with staff in order to resolve any problem stemming from Condition No. 14. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson that the case be approved subject to all conditions and a resolution of Conditions No. 14 with staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Minturn, Hobbs, Johnson, Williams). 9. CASE NO. 32MF, RICHARD COFFIN, APPLICANT A request for an extension of time of DRB approval regarding a 13-unit apart- ment complex to be located on the southeast corner of Santa Rosa and San Pas- cual. The DRB decided to require curbs and gutters on both Santa Rosa and San Pascual as a condition of approval rather than just on San Pascual. It was moved by Mr. Minturn and seconded by Mr. Johnson to approve a one-year time extension subject to all conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Minturn, Williams, Johnson, Hobbs). 0 t b y REALTY CORPORATION 73-700 EL PASEO -IN THE HOLIDAY REALTY BUILDING PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE 17141 346-6166 REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 745 PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260 March 14, 1977 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Mr. Paul Williams Dear Paul: Approximately one year ago we presented a plan for a 12 unit apartment project to be built on the property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Santa Rosa and San Pasqual. At that time, you granted a tentative approval which has just recently expired. We would like, at this time, to petition the Commission for a six month's extension on the plan approval. We have been delayed in starting the project because of the availability of financing, and now have the property in escrow with a builder who has financing and can proceed. Your early attention to this matter will be greated appreciated, as our escrow is contingent upon this request. Thanks in advance for your personal attention. 4Con,Richar APresidentRECE�YED HOLIDAYCORPORATION lyp 1 h 1977 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ie CITY OF PALM DESERT SPECIALIZING IN DESERT AND BEACH PROPERTIES RE®` EXCHANGES AND TRADES OUR FORTE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services cc: Jim Hill, Director of Building 6 Safety FROM: Bud Engel, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Case No. 32MF (Casa Pasqual Apts.) DATE: March 28, 1977 Prior to construction,of any of the proposed buildings,the following conditions must be met: I. Install a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any build- ing is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome , yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and 'three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number 32 MF is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal." off �IlZm =)(:D=omx){0 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE April 11, 1977 APPLICANT RICHARD COFFIN HOLIDAY REALTY CORPORATION 73-770 E1 Pasco, Palm Desert, CA. 92260 CASE NO.: 32MF The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 5, 1977 CONTINUED TO DENIED XXX. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 232. 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. 4t1- I PL! NG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROV- ING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF MARCH 29, 1977. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of March 29, 1977, approving: Case No. 49C - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a commercial building for SAN DIEGO FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN; Case No. 51C - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for an office/retail complex for HMS PLAZA WEST: Case No. 52C - Request for approval of preliminary site plan and elevations for retail/office building for WILLIAM STEWART; Case No. 42C - Request for approval of construction plans for a retail complex for ROGER MEYER; Case No. 43C - Request for approval of construction plans for a retail complex for CURT DUNHAM; Case No. 33MF - Request for approval of construction plans for an 80-unit condominium project for SUNRISE CORPORATION; Case No. 32MF - Request for an extension of time of DRB approval for a 13-unit apartment complex for RICHARD COFFIN; Case No. 63MF - Request for approval of construction plans for an 18-unit condominium project for MARRAKESH BUILDING AND COUNTRY CLUB; Case No. 64MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans for a private health club for STEPHEN HERMAN; Case No. 65MF - Request for approval of construction plans for a 70- unit condominium project for FRED RICE; WHEREAS, at this time, upon considering and receiving all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find sufficient facts and reasons to exist to approve the Design Review Board actions of March 29, 1977. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1, that the above recitations a,,, true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. that the attached conditions of the City Fire Marshall be included as conditions of approval for Case No. 32MF; 3. that it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of March 29, 1977, except that with regards to Case No. 49C, the following revisions will hereby be made to Condition of Approval No. 8 and No. 17: -1- Planning Commission Resolution No. 232 "8. Parking lot lighting and signage shall be provided in accordance with final construction plans to be submitted to the Design Re- view Board and the Planning Commission for final approval. Signage shall be limited to one (1) main building sign located on the north frontage of the building, a 24-hour teller sign, a time and temperature sign and logo sign as a part of the main sign on the north side of the building, a logo sign on the east and west sides of the building, a three (3) square foot drive-in teller sign, and a three (3) square foot customer parking sign. No signage shall be permitted on the fountain. The free standing directory signs shall be white letters on a brown background." "17. The stucco color of the building shall be more earthen tan in color and the roof material shall be red tile, a sample of which shall be reviewed as a part of the construction drawings." PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of April, 1977, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: r PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services cc: Jim Hill, Director of Building & Safety FROM: Bud Engel, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Case No. 32MF (Casa Pasqual Apts.) DATE: March 28, 1977 Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildinEs,the following conditions must be met: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM fire flow for a two (2) hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any build- ing is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and 'three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Number 32 MF is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal." MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -6- MARCH 3, 1976 Commissioner Berkey moved to approve the request for Plot Plan Approval reference Case No. 26C. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously carried. B. CASE NO. 32MF, H. CHAPLIN, Applicant Request for approval of preliminary plan for a 12-unit single story apartment project at the southeast corner of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue. Paul Williams explained the proposed project, giving the three justifications and also the staff recommendation that the Plan- ning Commission approve the request by Planning Commission Re- solution No. 126. Chairman Seidler asked Mr. Williams if the Design Review Board had reviewed the project prior to its being presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams stated that they had. Chair- man Seidler felt that since the project had been reviewed by the Design Review Board and since there had been a study session prior to tonight's meeting, the Commission should go ahead and make a motion for approval. Commissioner Mullins moved that the Planning Commission approve the request for approval of the preliminary plan. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion for approval by Planning Commission Resolution No. 126. Motion carried unanimously. At this time, Chairman Seidler stated that there was possibly a duplication of effort due to the fact that the Design Review Board was reviewing these cases and also the Planning Commission. He felt that if the Design Review Board had reviewed and approved the cases, then the Planning Commission should go ahead and ap- prove them without the review, unless there was a specific prob- em.� IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS The minutes of the Design Review Board meeting of February 24, 1976, were reviewed by the Commission. X. COMMENTS A. City Staff Paul Williams stated he had two additional items to present to the Commission that were not listed on the agenda. The first item was a resolution for Planning Commission ap- proval reference proposed projects being constructed by the Coachella Valley County Water District; namely, the Whitewater/Magnesia Falls Sewer and the Coral Gables Court Sewer. Commissioner Wilson moved and Commissioner Mullins seconded a motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 127, reference the above proposed projects being that they were in compliance with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. A Gf:(�Pwr oil IFI�, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE March 4, 1976 APPLICANT Harry Chaplin 73-697 Santa Rosa Palm Desert, California 92260 CASE NO. 32MF - Apartment Project The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of March 3, 1976 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 126 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. Applicant County Road Department CVCWD PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission F CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: 12 Unit Apartment Project Applicant: H. CHAPLIN Case No.: 32MF I. REQUEST: That the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plot plan, floor plan, and elevations for a 12-unit apartment project at the southeast corner of the intersection of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue. II III STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Resolu- tion No. , subject to the attached conditions. Justification is based upon: 1. Conformance of the project to the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. Compatibility of the proposed project to the existing and fu- ture development in the area. 3. The project does ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. BACKGROUND: A. Description: East 1/2 of the west 1/2 of Lot 10, Palma Village Grove. B. Location: Southeast corner of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue. C. Size: The subject parcel is roughly 210 ft. in width and 263 ft. in length and contains approximately 55,270 sq. ft. D. No. of Units: The site contains an existing single-family residence located in the southeast corner of the property. The applicant is proposing to add 12 two -bedroom apart- ments, making the total number of units 13. E. Density: 10.24 dwelling units per acre, which conforms to the existing zoning on the property. F. Zoning: R-2 G. Adjacent Zoning: North: R-2 South: R-1-10,000 East: R-2 West: R-2 H. General Plan: The Palm Desert General Plan indicates this area to be potential medium density residential (5-7 dwelling units per acre). -1- 2/26/76 H. CHAPLIN 12 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT -2- FEBRUARY 26, 1976 Type of Units: The 12 apartments will be built as 4 separate structures with 3 units each. The apartments will all have 2 bedrooms and 2 baths and will have 1,000 sq. ft. of living area. In addition, each unit will have a screened private patio with 240 sq. ft. The apartments will be one- story (9z ft. in height), contemporary in design, with a flat roof. The exterior will be a mixture of stucco and stained wood siding. The units will have a minimum of common wall so that noise should not be a problem. Parking: The applicant is providing 12 additional covered parking spaces and 12 open spaces, which meets the ordinance requirements. Most of the parking is clustered towards the rear of the site, allowing most of the street yards to be landscaped. K. Previous Actions: This project is being recommended for approval by the Design Review Board from their meeting of February 24, 1976. IV. DISCUSSION: The applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and tie-in paving, along the frontage of the property on San Pascual Avenue. In addition, a cross -gutter and spandrel at the intersection will also be required. The applicant will be required to underground the overhead utility lines adjacent to the west and south boundary lines of the property. No additional right-of-way dedication is necessary. The Design Review Board in reviewing the project made only a few minor changes in the plans, one being the recommendation that a lighter stain be used for the wood siding. The staff is recommending that detailed construction plans be reviewed by the Design Review Board. One possible critical area that may be of concern to the Planning Commission is due to the fact that the property is presently developed as a date grove, although the trees are relatively few in number and poor in condition. It is not shown on the General Plan as a date grove preservation area. e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCI14G FINDINGS AND APPROVING A PLOT PLAN TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 12-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SANTA ROSA WAY AND SAN PASCUAL AVENUE. CASE NO. 32MF. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did re- ceive a verified application from HARRY CHAPLIN requesting approval of a Plot Plan on property located in the R-2 Zone, and situated at the south- east corner of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue to allow for the de- velopment of a 12-unit apartment complex; the property being more particu- larly described as: the east 1/2 of the west 1/2 of Lot 10, Palma Village Grove WHEREAS, said applicant has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution Number 74-14", in that the project is exempt as a ministerial act; and, WHEREAS, on March 3, 1976, the Planning Commission did consider this request for Plot Plan Approval; and WHEREAS, at that time, upon receiving and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve the Plot Plan: 1. Conformance of the project to the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. Compatibility of the proposed project to the existing and future development in the area. 3. The project does ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert 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 Plot Plan No. 32MF, subject to the attached conditions: -1- Resolution No. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning_ Commission of the City of Palm Desert, held on March 3, 1976, by the fol- lowing vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary NILLIAM R. SEIDLER, Chairman IPA! I 2/25/76 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE N 32MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all develop- ment plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibit A-1, B and C) and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City and other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the de- velopment process. 3. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project com- mencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. Any air conditioning equipment shall be fully concealed from view from any public rights of way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. a) All service utility lines shall be placed underground. b) As a part of construction, the applicant shall underground all overhead distribution/transmission utility lines along the full south and west frontage of the subject property. 6. Curb, gutter, spandrel, cross -gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with Riverside County Standards along the full front- age of the property on San Pascual.v` Sa i.,taL 7. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval prior to issuance of any building permit. Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to each driveway along the property line. 8. A noncombustible trash storage area shall be provided as approved by the Director of Environmental Services. 9. Lighting of parking areas and premises shall be provided for as approved by the Design Review Board. 10. Signage shall be provided in accordance with signage plan to be submitted to the Planning Division for final approval. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 12. Parking facilities for the existing dwelling unit shall be increased to con- form to current zoning ordinance requirements. 13. A lighter color shall be used for the wood siding. 14. Additional separation shall be provided between the existing dwelling unit and the new parking area. CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: 12 Unit Apartment Project. Applicant: H.-CHAPLIN Case No.: 32MF I. REQUEST: That the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plot plan, floor plan, and elevations for a 12-unit apartment project at the southeast corner of the intersection of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue. II III STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Resolu- tion No. , subject to the attached conditions. Justification is based upon: 1. Conformance of the project to the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. Compatibility of the proposed project to the existing and fu- ture development in the area. 3. The project does ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. BACKGROUND: A. Description: East 1/2 of the west 1/2 of Lot 10, Palma Village Grove. B. Location: Southeast corner of Santa Rosa Way and San Pascual Avenue. C. Size: The subject parcel is roughly 210 ft. in width and 263 ft. in length and contains approximately 55,270 sq. ft. D. No. of Units: The site contains an existing single-family residence located in the southeast corner of the property. The applicant is proposing to add 12 two -bedroom apart- ments, making the total number of units 13. E. Density: 10.24 dwelling units per acre, which conforms to the existing zoning on the property. F. Zoning: R-2 G. Adjacent Zoning North: R-2 South: R-1-10,000 East: R-2 West: R-2 H. General Plan: The Palm Desert General Plan indicates this area to be potential medium density residential (5-7 dwelling units per acre). Be 2/26/76 a 3 H. CHAPLIN 12 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT -2- FEBRUARY 26, 1976 IV Type of Units: The 12 apartments will be built as 4 separate structures with 3 units each. The apartments will all have 2 bedrooms and 2. baths and will have 1,000 sq. ft. of living area. In addition, each unit will have a screened private patio with 240 sq. ft. The apartments will be one- story (91-z ft. in height), contemporary in design, with a flat roof. The exterior will be a mixture of stucco and stained wood siding. The units will have a minimum of common wall so that noise should not be a problem. Parking: The applicant is providing 12 additional covered parking spaces and 12 open spaces, which meets the ordinance requirements. Most of the parking is clustered towards the rear of the site, allowing most of the street yards to be landscaped. K. Previous Actions: This project is being recommended for approval by the Design Review Board from their meeting of February 24, 1976. DISCUSSION: The applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and tie-in paving, along the frontage of the property on San Pascual Avenue. In addition, a cross -gutter and spandrel at the intersection will also be required. The applicant will be required to underground the overhead utility lines adjacent to the west and south boundary lines of the property. No additional right-of-way dedication is necessary. The Design Review Board in reviewing the project made only a few minor changes in the plans, one being the recommendation that a lighter stain be used for the wood siding. The staff is recommending that detailed construction plans be reviewed by the Design Review Board. One possible critical area that may be of concern to the Planning Commission is due to the fact that the property is presently developed as a date grove, although the trees are relatively few in number and poor in condition. It is not shown on the General Plan as a date grove preservation area. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346--0611 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION REPORT REPORT ON: 12-unit Apartment Complex CASE NO.: 32MF ZONE: R-2 Date: February 25, 1976 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Santa Rosa and San Pascual APPLICANT: HARRY CHAPLIN NATURE OF APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plan DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: After reviewing the submitted plans and the presentations by the staff and by the applicant, the DRB approves this project, subject to the attached conditions. Date of Action: Motion Made By: Seconded By: Vote: February 24, 1976 Buccino Hobbs Approve 5-0. 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: 2 2/25/76 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE # 32MF 1. The development of this project shall conform substantially to all develop- ment plans submitted in behalf of this case (Exhibit A-1, B and C) and as revised according to Planning Commission action. Any minor changes require approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Any substantial change requires approval by the Planning Commission. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance, or regulation of the State, City and other applicable government entity shall be complied with as part of the de- velopment process. 3. This approval is applicable, subject to the development of this project com- mencing within one year from approval date and being promptly completed. 4. Any air conditioning equipment shall be fully concealed from view from any public rights of way and adjoining properties by architecturally integrated means. 5. a) All service utility lines shall be placed underground. b) As a part of construction, the applicant shall underground all overhead distribution/transmission utility lines along the full south and west frontage of the subject property. 6. Curb, gutter, spandrel, cross -gutter, curb cuts, and tie-in paving shall be provided in conformance with Riverside County Standards along the full front- age of the property on San Pascual. 7. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval prior to issuance of any building permit. Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to each driveway along the property line. 8. A noncombustible trash storage area shall be provided as approved by the Director of Environmental Services. 9. Lighting of parking areas and premises shall be provided for as approved by the Design Review Board._ 10. Signage shall be provided in accordance with signage plan to be submitted to the Planning Division for final approval. 11. Traffic control provisions shall be provided as required by the Director of Environmental Services. 12. Parking facilities for the existing dwelling unit shall be increased to con- form to current zoning ordinance requirements. 13. A lighter color shall be used for the wood siding. 14. Additional separation shall be provided between the existing dwelling unit and the new parking area. CY OF I' ALM DESIOW, CALIFORI, �• rz APPLICATION FOR ARCHITYCTIJRAI, PEVIEW BCARI) 1. Location of Property p Wet< ate 2.. Assessor's Parcel No. of Property: 3. Zoning Class i.fica.tion of Property:_ S. Use of structure(s) proposed: 5. Gross industrial or commercial building area or number and type of residential units or signs: 6. Applicant: (Please print) (Nam) " Mailing Address: 74 9. (Please print) (Street Ac ess -7/40, (City) (State Phone: (Area Code) (Nunber) Names and addresses of others who should receive an agenda notify- ing them of the hearing: (P.lease print) 9. I hereby certify that I have read and understand the adopted Standard Conditions of Approval of the Architectural Review Board as set forth in this application. 8. Property Owner: (Please print) (Name) Mailing Address: '7 Dom` �� �i9 CE' C (Please print) (Street Address) (City) (State) T ('Lip) Phone:�fr (Area Code) (:number) TO BE USED BY STAFF Based on the fact that this application is accompanied by the materials and information outlined in the instructions, I accept it for review by the Architectural Review Board. Signature Date Fee Paid Case No. Assigned Meeting Date Assigned Reason for ARD Review Categorical Exemption Class No. 1::::] E.I.R. process complete Case No. Ministerial Project CC', Applicant CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL RE'VLEW 13OARD I1. O. Box 1645 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 (714) 346-0611 DESCRIPTION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ARB - THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD was established July 25, 1974, by City Council Ordinance No. 43. One member of the City Council, two Planning Com- mission, the Director of Environmental Services and the Building Official are advised by the De- partment of Environmental Services staff. PURPOSE - The purpose of the Board is to manage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and pro- perty within the City, maintain the public health, safety and general welfare, maintain property and improvement values throughout the City and encour- age the physical development of the City as inten- ded by the General Plan, and Architectural Review Board is hereby established and its duties and re- sponsibilities shall be enumerated herein. The purpose of this Ordinance is to: Recognize the interdependence of land values and, aesthetics and provide a method by which the City may implement this interdependence to its benefit; Encourage the development of private and public property in harmony with the desired character of the City and in conformance withthe guidelines herein provided with due regard to the public and private interests involved; Foster attainment of those sections of the City's General Plan which specifically refer to the pre- servation and enhancement of the particular char- acter and unique assets of this City and its har- monious development, through encouraging private and public interests to assist in the implementa- tion process; Assure that the public benefits derived from ex- penditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and other public struc- tures and spaces shall be protected by the exer- cise of reasonable controls ove(r the character and design of buildings and open spaces to include street landscaping, median strips, parks, etc. Board meetings permit the applicant to meet with representatives of the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Staff to discuss alternative solutions_to mutual problems. WHEN & WHERE - The Board meets,every Tuesday at 4:30 P.M. in the City Council Conference Room. The meetings are open to the general public. t e, Wily - To review development plans and sign proposals for any proposed construction in all Zone Districts throughout the City. Development plans and sign proposals for any proposed construction in commer- cial and industrial zones must also be approved by the Planning Commission. HOW - To be included on an Architectural Review Board agenda an application form and all other required materials must be submitted to the Planning Divi- sion of the Department of Environmental Services by noon the Friday 10 days prior to the day of the hearing. It is suggested that the application form and all of the required materials be filed in per- son so that they can be reviewed by Staff at the time of filing. For property in commercial and in- dustrial zones, if approved by the ARB, the requests will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next meeting. FEES - The following fees shall accompany the application': Single-family residence - $15.00 Other types of development - $50.00 NOTE: Duplexes are included in the definition of a single family residence NOTIFICATION - All applicants who are scheduled for a meeting may view the agenda posted at City Hall. This agenda is the onlv notification of the hearinc. PLAN REVIEW' - All plans are tentatively accepted subject to staff review for compliance with all City Ordinance Code requirements. In the event plans do not comply, they will be returned for revision. ATTENDANCE - The applicant or his designated representative should be in attendance at the time of the meeting. SUBMITTAL - No application shall be accepted for review by the Board unless it is accompanied at the time of sub- mission by the plans, materials, and information as set forth below. A submittal will not be considered complete unless it includes the following items: (Note: If the request is only for the approval of signs, the only submittal necessary is as contained under "Sign Plans" on page 3.) SITE PLAN - Three (3) copies of a detailed scaled drawing of a dimensioned site plan which must include an indica- tion of all the following relevant items: The designer's name, address, and telephone number The scale of the drawing and the North point . The street address of the property involved, adja- cent streets and a vicinity map to assist in loca- ting the property Street rights of way, property lines, building setback lines, curbs, sidewalks, and adjacent property uses and buildings • All existing and proposed buildings • Parking spaces, drives, and loading areas in accor- dance with the City's design standards -3- . Existing trees and proposed landscaped areas . Sign locations . Pedestrian entrances, exits, and walks . Trash storage areas with screening . Parking lot details such as wheel stops, curbs, and other miscellaneous improvements . Cross -sections of lot and drainage at mid -point of front property line and side property line . Other applicable information including the lo- cation of all existing and proposed utility facilities, on -site lighting standards and "pad" mounted equipment ELEVATION PLANS - Three (3) copies of detailed elevations of all sides of each building, dimensional and drawn to scale showing: •• The designer's name, address, and telephone num- ber . The scale of the drawings . The texture, materials, and colors of all exposed surfaces . Architectural features including all doors, win- dows, railings, stairs, mechanical equipment, and fences • All signs, existing or proposed, in relation to the buildings . Other applicable information including the screen- ing of trash enclosures, roof equipment, electric and gas meters, and cable T.V. hookups FLOOR PLANS - Three (3) copies of all floor plans showing door and window location and room names to assist in a mean- ingful interpretation of the elevation plans. SIGN PLANS - ,Applications for the approval of signs must be ac- companied by a color and material sample board, as described below, and three (3) copies each of: . A dimensioned sign illustration - one copy showing all colors including the building color . A site plan, dimensioned and drawn to scale, show- ing the designer's name, address, and telephone number, the location of all signs, existing and proposed, on the structure(s), the overall dimen- sions of the buildings, the building setback lines, and the street address of the property . An elevation plan, dimensioned and drawn to scale, showing all building and ground signs, existing and proposed, in relation to the building for which they are to be used, and how the signs are mounted and illuminated SAMPLE BOARD - A color and material sample board is to be submitted with the application and plans showing in detail all materials and colors to be used in construction including those for walls, fences, signs, and screen- ing. This sample board should be mounted on paper or thin cardboard and should be no larger than S_' by 14 inches. Use as many sample boards as necessary to.show all colors and materials proposed to be used. Sample materials must be of a size to facilitate re- tention and storage in a standard legal size file folder.